[gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call

[Beckham, Brian]

Apologies if I incorrectly in your view added the word percent after the raw numbers.

In any event, I stand by what I said, and prefer not to engage in further discussion.  


-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:04 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call

Hello,

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> Without looking at the links you provide, you will see that a search on WIPO's database for "TMCH" shows 33 hits:
> http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?q=tmch.
>
> A search for "Trademark Clearinghouse" shows 72 hits:
> http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?tab=1&q=%22Trademark+Clearinghouse%22&rows=20.
>
> These results are against the almost 1,200 UDRP cases involving new 
> gTLDs that have been filed at WIPO.  (Even the 100 and 298 figures you 
> cite below, which are presumably across all providers?)
>
> In my book, these statistics (0.0275 and 0.06 percent respectively) qualify as "very few".

72 out of 1200 is 6 percent, not 0.06 percent.  [similarly 33 out of
1200 is 2.75%, not 0.0275 percent] Whether that's a "few" or "very few" or "high" is subjective -- having the raw numbers is less subjective. I personally would not call 72 cases "very few" (and that wouldn't include NAF, etc., or the cases where it's mentioned in a complaint, but not in the decision]

If 6% of UDRPs result in a RDNH result, some might call that "very high" --- it's all a matter of perspective.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg