[gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group

Terri Agnew terri.agnew at icann.org
Wed Jul 26 19:50:10 UTC 2017


Dear All,

 

Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3,
Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all
Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday,
26 July 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki
page: https://community.icann.org/x/BwAhB

MP3:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-26jul17-en.mp3

Adobe Connect recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p8wfw9s3oo0/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a734cab52dd0f74b
6487850c643c955ffb306ed2d345023772faa3091aafe84d>
https://participate.icann.org/p8wfw9s3oo0/

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

 

Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/

 

Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw

 

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri

 

 

Adobe Connect chat transcript for 26 July 2017: 

  Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms
(RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 26 July 2017 at 17:00
UTC for 90 minute duration.

  Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_B
wAhB
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
BwAhB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI
gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ET79ZsAiBlU9k_tb_FClgj_RASx2R95O92NQIuOVWJ4
&s=nKyNZB4tl8mIcVKRptImOeDLY-PcoDLSEpNiiZB3yh0&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ET79ZsAiBlU9k_tb_FClgj_RASx2R95O92NQIuOVWJ4&s=nK
yNZB4tl8mIcVKRptImOeDLY-PcoDLSEpNiiZB3yh0&e= 

  George Kirikos:Hi folks!

  Jeremy Malcolm:Hello

  George Kirikos:Hi Jeremy.

  Martin Silva:Hi all

  George Kirikos:Welcome Martin.

  Philip Corwin:Hello all. I'm dialing in now.

  George Kirikos:<<----- Wal-Mart greeter in another life

  George Kirikos:Welcome Phil.

 Paul Tattersfield:Hello everyone

  Steve Levy:Hi all!

  George Kirikos:Some of those 30 are actually ICANN staffers, though.

  George Kirikos:Hi Paul and Steve.

  Paul Tattersfield:Hi George

  Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello all

  George Kirikos:Hi Maxim.

  Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves

  George Kirikos:File is also at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170725/97b714a2/Anno
tatedResults-OpenTMCHQuestionsPoll-0001.pdf if anyone wants to view on their
computer directly.

  George Kirikos:"I can live with this" should be added to "Yes", not "No"

  David McAuley:not sure the 'nos' go with the 'live with'

  George Kirikos:So, it would be 22% to 78%, not 13% to 87%.

  David McAuley:Thanks to co-chairs and staff for pre-checking and ensuring
clarity

  John McElwaine:Why would we even have a "I can live with this" category?

  George Kirikos:Add up to 39 who took the poll, but 164 participants at
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pag
es_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D58729950
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa
ges_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D58729950&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfk
bPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ET79ZsAiB
lU9k_tb_FClgj_RASx2R95O92NQIuOVWJ4&s=ZO7AxE51PlVqKH_y2LZuakMPES8d1SK3T97pL43
0iNI&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ET79ZsAiBlU9k_tb_FClgj_RASx2R95O92NQIuOVWJ4&s=ZO
7AxE51PlVqKH_y2LZuakMPES8d1SK3T97pL430iNI&e= 

  George Kirikos:I can understand everyone can't make the phone calls, but
the survey was relatively easy, and there were several weeks to fill it out.

  Amr Elsadr:@John: To allow respondents who don't have terribly strong
opinions on any given question a third choice to select.

  George Kirikos:I think we did go over several of these last week.

  John McElwaine:@Amr  I think it would be better to have a response that
says simply "no opinion".  I am concerned that "I can live with this" is a
loaded question to detract from - as George mentioned - people who were
intending to respond "yes".

 George Kirikos:The difference now is we have the breakdown into the
composition of each answer.

  George Kirikos:Q3, it's mostly a division between TM interests and non-TM.

  Bradley Silver:Agree with @john.  It could also be explained that those
who "coudl live with this" should select "yes".  As in, "yes, I can live
with this."

  George Kirikos:@Bradley: although, the "I can live with this" implies they
were between yes and no....i.e. there were some reservations.

  Amr Elsadr:@John: Thanks and noted. Will keep that in mind in the event
that we run another poll in the future, perhaps as a fourth option?

  Bradley Silver:Benig able to ive with something is acquiescence,
acceptance - perhaps not without some reservations, but on balance, its a
yes. 

  Pascal Boehner:fully agree with Steve; same would apply under EU trademark
laws

  Colin O'Brien:+1 Steve

  Griffin Barnett:Agree with Steve - this is supported not only in national
trademark law, but also in UDRP and URS decisions, where stylized marks
served as the basis for decisions in favor of the TM owner

  Bradley Silver:+1 Steve

  Scott Austin:+1 Steve

  Marie Pattullo:Another +1 to Steve.

  Susan Payne:yep

  Mary Wong:@Griffin, do you have citations or links to some of the UDRP and
URS decisions handy? That may be helpful.

  George Kirikos:@Mary: some are listed in section 1.10 of
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_amc_en_doma
ins_search_overview3.0_
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_amc_en_dom
ains_search_overview3.0_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I
5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ET79ZsAiBlU9k_tb_FClgj_R
ASx2R95O92NQIuOVWJ4&s=QP-o7pKXf0IYsRZOwu8Iw19ccXLc38BPCaSu_apQbho&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ET79ZsAiBlU9k_tb_FClgj_RASx2R95O92NQIuOVWJ4&s=QP
-o7pKXf0IYsRZOwu8Iw19ccXLc38BPCaSu_apQbho&e= 

  George Kirikos:+1 Rebecca

  Mary Wong:Thanks, George. We will add that to the notes for this call.

  Steve Levy:What's disclaimed is a separate issue from what's stylized

  Jeremy Malcolm:+1 Rebecca

  George Kirikos:Right, Rebecca. It's all too easy for weak TM owners to
want the TMCH to default to inclusion of these marks, as opposed to default
to exclusion. Financially, the TMCH operators make more money if they're
included, so the incentives are all wrong.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:There is a way for the TMCH to make a determination
whether a mark is registered in the text that would be used to match in the
TMCH, though.  I agree that examination is required to determine
descriptiveness.

  Jeff Neuman:@george - I dont see any TMCH Operators on this call
advocating one way or the other, so your comment on incentives is not
applicable

  Jeff Neuman:@george - I dont see any TMCH Operators on this call
advocating one way or the other, so your comment on incentives is not
applicable

  Griffin Barnett:@Mary - I will look for some

  Rebecca L Tushnet:It's interesting how "you don't have evidence" is
deployed in these discussions--I will simply ask for equal treatment of
inferences from lack of evidence.

  John McElwaine:@Mary and @George - WIPO Overview Section 1.10 is not the
correct citation for issues concerning stylized marks.  It is relevant to
the question of how UDRP panels have treated "design elements or disclaimed
text treated in assessing identity or confusing similarity"

  George Kirikos:@Jeff: but we know from the examples submitted to Deloitte,
where 100% of them were acceptable to them.

  Steve Levy:Agree with Greg. TMCH policy should be neutral as to size of
the TM owner

  Mary Wong:@John, thanks for the clarification. I hadn't looked at the
section so that is helpful. Hopefully Griffin can provide some information
shortly.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:TMCH should not decide scope of protection at the mark
intake stage.

  Marie Pattullo:Rebecca: you're suggesting that the TMCH operator should
examine each mark? That's a technical legal role performed by IPOs, not
Deloitte.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:No, the opposite.

  Pascal Boehner:+1 Marie

  Rebecca L Tushnet:Susan's point is that scope may be larger than what is
registered, which is absolutely true.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:But what is registered is the TMCH guide, and is really
the only thing that can be decided w/o substantive examination.

  Susan Payne:Rebecca, I was responding to your point that EU marks are
limited to only the exact amrk - which is an inaccuracy

  Rebecca L Tushnet:No, my point was that the registration is the sign on
the registert

  Rebecca L Tushnet:The scope is a different question

  Marie Pattullo:Thanks Rebecca - then what does this mean please: "here is
a way for the TMCH to make a determination whether a mark is registered in
the text that would be used to match in the TMCH, though.  I agree that
examination is required to determine descriptiveness."

  Michael R Graham:Sorry for joining late.  Anything I need to know/catchup
on?

  Rebecca L Tushnet:The EUIPO doesn't allow disclaimers because it doesn't
register parts of marks

  Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - I do not agree with the assesment that the STI fully
considered these issues as definitive as you are making it sound

  Rebecca L Tushnet:Substantive examination is not required to identify
whether a mark is in text form or not in text form

  Jeff Neuman:We all agreed to compromises given the short time frame

  George Kirikos:Maybe Louboutin shoes (which has a TM for the colour "red"
for shoe bottoms) is entitled to the string "RED.TLD" in the eyes of
some??!!??

  Susan Payne:don't be ridiculous George

  Mary Wong:The IRT and STI didn't expressly distinguish between text marks
that are "pure" text or "stylized" text

  Kathy Kleiman:See 4.1

  George Kirikos:@Susan: given the expansive TM rights asserted by some are
equally ridiculous, it's something to be aware of....

  Rebecca L Tushnet:If we are considering rights in the mark then there is
no reason to limit to registered marks

  George Kirikos:It's the natural progression....

  Rebecca L Tushnet:The UDRP lets people prove their rights in many ways

  Kathy Kleiman:@Greg, if the USPTO does not say that, how can you?

  Rebecca L Tushnet:We should be considering registration, not rights

  Susan Payne:noe of us have been arguing that so let's not go down rabbit
holes

  Marie Pattullo:Non-traidtional marks (colour, sound, smell) aren't text.

  Marie Pattullo:*traditional. Sorry for lack of typing skills today.

 Emily Weaver:That is correct. Stylizations of marks are currently accepted
by the TMCH as long as there is a text element

  George Kirikos:That's why some folks want to keep the TMCH DB secret, so
we can't examine what was accepted.

  Scott Austin:it should be noted that even the own your power mark as
registered had no disclaimer; none was required by the USPTO for
descriptiveness; 

  Rebecca L Tushnet:Scott's point is exactly why the TMCH should not accept
stylized marks: it turns out that you can't tell whether there are rights in
text alone from the fact of a registration for a stylized version.

  Michael R Graham:@All -- Please do not presume motives you do not know, or
expand the sublime to the ridiculous.  Doesn't help further our
discussion/understanding.

  Scott Austin:but neiter should we have to wait for a court decision to
determine whether a mark should be accepted merely to allow an owner to
receive notice 

  Jeff Neuman:Part of the problem with these questions is not whether its in
the TMCH, but how it is ultimately is used

  George Kirikos:Half the folks would accept that "CARS" example,
unbelievable.

  Jeff Neuman:Somethings may be acceptable for claims, but not Sunrise....as
an example

  Marie Pattullo:No George, that's not why. As you know it's because my
members don't wish to share their commercial DN strategy with others. Should
anyone wish to examine their marks they are welcome to do so  via the IPOs'
registers.

  Greg Shatan:There is a presumed right in non-disclaimed text.  Clearly,
OWN YOUR POWER was chosen as an example because there was a case that was
helpful to some points of view.  Indeed all the examples were chosen because
they were helpful to one (and the same) point of view.

  Michael R Graham:@Phil -- The "Registrant" "TM Owner" option created a
false dichotomy since both classes overlap the other.

  Jeremy Malcolm:If lack of consensus means we have to accept the current
misapplication of policy then this is a problem - consensus can only ratchet
protections up, never down?

  George Kirikos:We know Deloitte WOULD accept it --- that was a question
asked of them.

  Greg Shatan:So, the examples should not be seen as random or
representative.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:+1 George

  George Kirikos:(Deloitte accepted all of the examples we sent them)

  Steve Levy:The word "Cars", whether in a composite mark or othewise, can
certainly be owned as a TM for goods that have nothing to do with
automobiles (ex. socks, candy bars, etc.)

  George Kirikos:CARS was one of the specific examples sent to them.

Greg Shatan:@Jeremy, IMHO it is not a misapplication of policy.  I think
those who voted as I did share that view.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:And movies about cars, which was the actual
registration?

  George Kirikos:Volume is a bit low.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:Point being, again, we don't know anything about the
scope from the existence of a stylized/composite registration, once again.

  John McElwaine:@Phil - this is what the TMCH is doing with respect to
non-Word only marks:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearing
house.com_content_what-2Dabout-2Ddeviceimage-2Dmarks
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearin
ghouse.com_content_what-2Dabout-2Ddeviceimage-2Dmarks&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6w
rcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2E
Bk&m=ET79ZsAiBlU9k_tb_FClgj_RASx2R95O92NQIuOVWJ4&s=DpSaRnSGdu6AeTES76UcoRwoJ
UyFH_E_IVxYRkBERiw&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ET79ZsAiBlU9k_tb_FClgj_RASx2R95O92NQIuOVWJ4&s=Dp
SaRnSGdu6AeTES76UcoRwoJUyFH_E_IVxYRkBERiw&e= 

  Greg Shatan:Rebecca, is that the description of goods and services for
CARS?

  Jeremy Malcolm:Really problematic that Deliottes can't be held to account
for their misapplication of policy unless we have a full consensus 

  Jeff Neuman:No one on this call is saying that TM owners should have
greater rights than they have under their own laws....opn the other hand,
they dont want less rights.

  David McAuley:please mute

  Jeff Neuman:So how can we find the right balance

  Jon Nevett:@jeremy good point if what the TMCH is doing goes against its
direction

  Jeremy Malcolm:Well EFF can and will call them out for it

  Susan Payne:The point about these examples is that we were meant to be
looking just at what was in the document, not conducting our own research on
the goods/services or any litigatioon there may have been

  George Kirikos:Better balance is to kill the sunrises.

  George Kirikos:For starters.

  Jeremy Malcolm:+1 George

  Mary Wong:From the link provided by John: "The recorded name of the
Trademark is an identical match to the reported name as long as the name of
the Trademark includes letters, words, numerals, keyboard signs, and
punctuation marks ("Characters") that are:predominantclearly separable or
distinguishable from the device element;and all predominant characters are
included in the Trademark Record submitted to the Clearinghouse in the same
order they appear in the mark."

  Susan Payne:No - better balance is not to kill the sunrise

  Colin O'Brien:+1 Susan

  Mary Wong:That is the instructions for marks that do"not exclusively
consist of letters, words"

  George Kirikos:If the TMCH will be a database of weak marks, let them pay
for notice (which the national databases already provide for), but not pay
for jumping the queue.

  Jeff Neuman:@George - lots of assumptions here.

  Scott Austin:one of the CARS design registrations is for CANDY US Reg. No.
3,257,190

  Paul Tattersfield:@George they can just use a different jurisdiction

  George Kirikos:TM rights in the real world are remedial in nature, and
don't preempt the rights to others to speak (they do so at the risk of later
being held in violation of someone's marks).

  Jeff Neuman:If people keep coming to this group with a preset position
(eg., kill sunrise), then this group will get no where and I would recommend
folding up shop

  Jeff Neuman:because we will get no where

  Susan Payne:+1 Jeff

  Greg Shatan:@Jeremy, I would hope EFF would be careful about
misinterpreting policy before "calling out" the TMCH on a purported
"misapplication" of policy.

  Marie Pattullo:TM rights in the real world are a badge of origin for
consumers. They protect consumers from confusion.

  George Kirikos:@Jeff: it's not a "preset position" --- it's an evolved
conclusion, after seeing the *evidence* of how it's being misused.

  Jeremy Malcolm:why is closing Sunrise a preset position any more than
allowing it to continue as it is, abuses and all?

  George Kirikos:Others don't even want the evidence to be collected, let
alone be examined and neutrally used to come to a reasonable conclusion.

  Jeremy Malcolm:Thanks for the  friendly advice Greg but we are pretty
comfortable with our criticisms

  Jeff Neuman:@George - what are you talking about?

  George Kirikos:@Jeff: in regards to what?

  Kathy Kleiman:@Jeff, it's funny that what some people view as the inherent
balance of the TMCH (e.g., Sunrise) and what other people view as part of
the inherent balance (text marks only) is not fair game for all equally.

  Scott Austin:Of the 32 registrations  to Disney for the CARS words plus
design mark in the Deloitte response only one is for motion pictures; the
rest are merchandise

  Greg Shatan:I'm sure the one for motion pictures was chosen at random.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:@Scott, and yet that merchandise is about the movie
CARS--which would matter for substantive examination, though it shouldn't
for the TMCH

  Michael R Graham:@Kathy -- I'm not following what you are referring to --
seems to be oblique reference to a lack of balance?

  Kathy Kleiman:@Michael, tx for asking. I'm confusing about what question
re: "balance" are allowed and which ones are off limits?

  Scott Austin:and the cybersquatting would be to capitalize on the internet
traffic from the movie CARS; which is still not discriptive of motion
pictures; so Disney, with 32 registrations shuld be denied TCMH protection?

  George Kirikos:@Scott: it's descriptive for "movies about cars", though!

  Rebecca L Tushnet:Speaking of unwarranted inferences--when I search for
CARS very few sites are trying to free ride on Disney.

  Scott Austin:@ George in what dictionary is that?

  Rebecca L Tushnet:More to the point: yes, Disney should be treated like
every other registrant, if it doesn't have a text registration.  

  Scott Austin:@ Rebecca Apparently the TMCH is working for that mark. 

  Greg Shatan:Speaking substantive examination, I looked at one CARS
registration and the only problem the examiner had was that "non-alcoholic
beverages" was unacceptable as indefinite in the description of goods.

  David McAuley:make a difference = not accepted in TMCH, no?

  Greg Shatan:@George, that's now how "descriptiveness" works.

  Mary Wong:@David, yes

  Greg Shatan:I agree with that guess and David's remark in the chat.  I
thought it was quite clear.

  George Kirikos:Question was confusing, because the part in brackets was
"mark should NOT be accepted into the TMCH".

  David McAuley:very low audio Rebecca

  Mary Wong:@Paul, that is Question 10 :)

  Greg Shatan:Rebecca, if you feel comfortable, did you answer "no"?

  Rebecca L Tushnet:@Scott, are you seriously suggesting that CARS is mainly
in use online to identify Disney?

  Rebecca L Tushnet:Because I think Toyota et al. might disagree

  Rebecca L Tushnet:@Greg, yes, I did.

  George Kirikos:lol

  George Kirikos:The longer answers to the question might be better than the
yes/no.

  Scott Austin:Own your power as a stylized mark was substantively examined
by the USPTO and no disclaimer was required so it raises the question why
this mark was used next to an assumption of being "expressly disclaimed"

  Jeff Neuman:If I were to boil down these discussions I would say that we
have some different camps on this call.  (1) Some believe that only text
based marks should be allowed in the clearinghouse regardless of whether
other types of marks have legal rights. (2) Others are making the point that
any mark that has legal rights, whether text based, stylized, etc. should be
allowed in.  I have not heard anyone argue that everything should be
protected regardless of whether  they have legal rights or not.  But I do
not see those in Camp 1 moving to Camp 2 or vice versa

  Jeff Neuman:If neither "camp" wants to move, then this discussion should
be cut short as being no ability to reach consensus.  Talking about it more
is not likely to make progress.  But I could be wrong

  David McAuley:If a reg TM is also protected by statute or treaty why would
the language statute or treaty be needed?

  Rebecca L Tushnet:+1 David

  Michael R Graham:I think Q13 is extremely confusing.  What was being
asked?  And is this not asking us to comment on the definition of types of
Marks that are intended to be protected ?

  John McElwaine:I am not sure that you can attribute "I can live with this"
to either a yes or a no

  Michael R Graham:@John -- Agree

  George Kirikos:@Jeff: the issue is what data can be collected to inform
the discussion, i.e. if folks cannot be swayed by evidence, then........ ?

  Jeff Neuman:@George, this discussion today is only being formed by
opinions without evidence

  Steve Levy:Good synopsis, Jeff.  Thanks

  George Kirikos:I think some people in each of the camps are open-minded,
and can move based on evidence.

  Paul Tattersfield:Statute can be the domestic implementation of a treaty

  George Kirikos:@Jeff: right, this is just initial opinions.

  Jeff Neuman:@George, after over a year, shouldnt we be past inition
opinions

  Jeff Neuman:initial opinions

  George Kirikos:Bayesian approach: (1) prior beliefs, (2) data, (3)
posterior beliefs (as 1 gets updated by 2).

  Paul McGrady:Doesn't "marks protected by statute or treaty" just capture
marks which exist by way of statute or treaty and not just common law marks?

  Paul Tattersfield:in the US you need to consider marks that begin 89

  George Kirikos:@Jeff: I agree with you, we're stuck without data.

  George Kirikos:All those Article 6ter IGO names, too.

  Paul Tattersfield:I think people are misunderstanding the phrase by
statute or treaty

  Jeff Neuman:in this case, preconceived beliefs will cause gravitation
towards data that supports your point of view.  For example, those that
believe that the TMCH has been captured by "weak" marks, will pull that
data.  Those that believe it has not will pull the thousands of other
records.

  John McElwaine:@Rebecca - I agree.  I believe that this was meant to cover
"designations" such as Red Cross, Red Crescent, Boy Scouts, Olympics

  George Kirikos:Statute/treaty also has some overlap with GIs, doesn't it?

  Rebecca L Tushnet:@John, I think that then might extend to certain GIs--if
I recall correctly, at least a number of EU GIs have specific statutes
behind them--that seems like the key issue/problem to me.

  Jeff Neuman:This was added after the GAC Consultations with the ICANN
Board in Brussels

  David McAuley:Useful info, thanks Mary

  Mary Wong:I think the number was 75 marks

  Mary Wong:But will check

  Jeff Neuman:But they could not break that down into whether they were GIs,
IGO names, etc.

  John McElwaine:@George and @Rebecca - I think some believe GIs are a
different matter as they are not always owned by one party.   

  George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute

  George Kirikos:Or did we lose Greg?

  Greg Shatan:Audio dropped

  Rebecca L Tushnet:@John, I agree--but some are, for example Champagne has
an authority, equivalent to the US certification mark, which I think we all
agree is covered

  Jeff Neuman:@George, if there anyone that knows the speaking rules for
Adobe, it is Greg :)

  Mary Wong:UPDATE: Deloitte's report on "marks protected by statute or
treaty" - as of Feb 2017, 98 were submitted, 75 were successfully verified.

  George Kirikos:So, if one of the smaller nations (e.g. Tuvalu) passes a
statute/law protecting "SEX", "CARS", "HOTELS", etc., that nation could have
sunrise over a large swath of internet real estate?

  Paul Tattersfield:its for marks like UNHCR

  Jeff Neuman:@George - unfortunately, yes

  Mary Wong:@George, from reviewing the explanation, the "mark" must still
function as a mark, albeit unregistered.

  Paul Tattersfield:of course they should be in they can't be registered in
a tradional way so they are added with serial numbers beginning 89 

  George Kirikos:Pitcairn Islands -- population 57. :-)

  Kathy Kleiman:Mutiny on the Bounty... 

  Paul Tattersfield:no

  Greg Shatan:The statute or treaty functions as a form of "registration."

  Petter Rindforth:So, the "YES" majority may well have been a "NO" majority
with this clarification. 

  Rebecca L Tushnet:Seems the logical implication

  George Kirikos:Does statute/treaty even contemplate different levels of
government? (i.e. local, provincial/state, federal?)

  John McElwaine:@George - treaty does (i.e, federal or national). Statute
does not.

  George Kirikos:@John: so, a small local jurisdiction (population 10)
within a larger country could pass a statute, that would allow for its
preferred terms to be registered into the TMCH?

  Greg Shatan:+1 Paul.

  Paul Tattersfield:GI just confuses the issue

  Paul Tattersfield:+1 Paul

  Rebecca L Tushnet:If GIs aren't marks, why is UNCHR a mark?

  Rebecca L Tushnet:If certification marks are marks when registered, why
aren't GIs marks?

  Greg Shatan:Apples and oranges.

  George Kirikos:Who is speaking now?

  John McElwaine:@Rebecca certification marks have only one (indicator of
source) certifying organization

  Greg Shatan:Because some trademarks are not registered, but are still
protected by statute or treaty.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:Let me be clear: I could be happy if we end up with a
definition that excludes many GIs, or includes many; I just want one that
helps people understand what's covered and why.

  Greg Shatan:GIs, when protected as such, are a sui generis form of
protection.

  Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):Red Cross is not a good example,. they have special
protection on different level (prohibition to register based on ICANN's XML)

  Rebecca L Tushnet:@John, also true of Champagne given French law

  Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):in RA

  Greg Shatan:When protected as a registered trademark, it meets the
requirements for trademark protection and should be treated as such.

  Rebecca L Tushnet:... or by statute or treaty, whatever that means.

  Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves

  Greg Shatan:@Maxim, that stemmed from their protection by treaty.

  George Kirikos:4 pages

  Rebecca L Tushnet:@Maxim, we can also do Boy Scouts as our example from
the US if that works better

  Marie Pattullo:Any collection of pricing info must be
anonymised/aggregated.

  Mary Wong:Also, concrete suggestions as to particular stakeholders to
reach out to, or what sources you know already exist, wil be VERY welcome.

  George Kirikos:Are we at 1 pm (Eastern) next week? Or 11 pm?

  Terri Agnew:fourth rotation: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms
(RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Thursday, 03 August
2017 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minute duration.

  Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):bye all

  George Kirikos:Bye folks.

  David McAuley:thanks all, good bye

  Steve Levy:Thanks all!

  Paul Tattersfield:thanks all bye

  Mary Wong:Thanks, Phil and everyone

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170726/9bcc79cb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM Member  26 July 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 337691 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170726/9bcc79cb/attendanceRPMMember26July2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170726/9bcc79cb/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list