[gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week

Wed May 3 16:14:58 UTC 2017

Yes, or you could say that the policy was implemented in a manner that
unilaterally modified the policy.  There was no basis in the policy for
including GIs in the TMCH (unless they were trademarks that also happened
to be GIs).

Greg

*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:16 AM, URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System -
MFSD <urs at mfsd.it> wrote:

> Was the Policy modified unilaterally by the TMCH operator?
>
> Ivett Paulovics
> URS Domain Dispute Case Manager
> ---
>
> MFSD Srl | IP Dispute Resolution Center
> Viale Beatrice d'Este, 20 | 20122 Milano (Italy)
> T +39 02 45506624 <+39%2002%204550%206624> | F +39 02 91471087
> <+39%2002%209147%201087>
> M +39 329 2596103 <+39%20329%20259%206103>
> urs at mfsd.it <responsabile at mfsd.it> | https://urs.mfsd.it
> Skype mfsd.urs
> P. Iva 04810100968 (Italian VAT)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> URS Domain Dispute Resolution Service Provider approved by ICANN
> .it Domain Dispute Resolution Center accredited by Registry .it
> IP Mediation Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (no. 903)
> IP Mediation Training Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice
> (no. 392)
>
>
>
> Il giorno 02 mag 2017, alle ore 22:23, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>
> ha scritto:
>
> It would benefit the multistakeholder community if the Policy as written
> and adopted by the Board was implemented, rather the Policy as modified
> unilaterally by the TMCH operator.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
> Paul D. McGrady, Jr.
> icannlists at winston.com
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-
> bounces at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *URS -
> Uniform Rapid Suspension System - MFSD
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:07 PM
> *To:* J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com>
> *Cc:* J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
> *Importance:* High
>
> I don’t really understand whose benefit would it be making changes to TMCH
> on GIs… Surely not of right holders and consumers.
>
> Only because there is different approaches to their protection (however
> there is a common starting point: the TRIPs Agreement to which all WTO
> Member States adhere), it is not a reason to do such kind of limitation and
> excluding a part of the GIs.
>
> If a step ahead was made, why should we make a step behind?
>
> Ivett Paulovics
> URS Domain Dispute Case Manager
> ---
>
> MFSD Srl | IP Dispute Resolution Center
> Viale Beatrice d'Este, 20 | 20122 Milano (Italy)
> T +39 02 45506624 <+39%2002%204550%206624> | F +39 02 91471087
> <+39%2002%209147%201087>
> M +39 329 2596103 <+39%20329%20259%206103>
> urs at mfsd.it <responsabile at mfsd.it> | https://urs.mfsd.it
> Skype mfsd.urs
> P. Iva 04810100968 (Italian VAT)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> URS Domain Dispute Resolution Service Provider approved by ICANN
> .it Domain Dispute Resolution Center accredited by Registry .it
> IP Mediation Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (no. 903)
> IP Mediation Training Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice
> (no. 392)
>
>
> <image001.png>
>
>
> Il giorno 02 mag 2017, alle ore 17:11, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> ha scritto:
>
> Massimo:
>
> As I stated earlier, you are correct. As originally conceived the
> Clearinghouse was to be a database and verification for all kinds of IP
> rights. It was our concept that by having a centralized database, this
> would allow registries in certain countries to protect IP that was
> recognized in their home country. For example, a German registry could
> offer protection for book titles which are IP in Germany. However, through
> the STI process and several iterations of the Applicant Guidebook
> responding to community input, that concept was discarded and the
> Clearinghouse was limited to registered trademarks or unregistered
> trademarks that had been recognized by a court of competent jurisdiction
> and trademarks protected by statute or treaty. Not GIs.
>
> J. Scott
>
> <image001.gif>
> *J. Scott Evans*
> 408.536.5336 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel)
> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
> Director, Associate General Counsel
> 408.709.6162 <(408)%20709-6162> (cell)
> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
> Adobe. Make It an Experience.
> jsevans at adobe.com
> www.adobe.com
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Massimo Vittori <Massimo at origin-gi.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 7:06 AM
> *To: *"J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com>, Greg Shatan <
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
> *Cc: *"J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
> J. Scott, we agree on the introduction, but not on the conclusion, as I
> would like to have a more in depth discussion on the inclusion of GIs in
> the TMCH.
>
> To follow-up on the historical context sent by Mary on 25 April, I note
> that the IRT report states: *“Most pre-launch RPMs have focused on
> registered trademark rights of national or multi-national effect. Whilst it
> is expected that the IP Clearinghouse will predominantly feature data on
> such rights, some registry operators may opt to include as eligible for
> their pre-launch RPM other types of rights, such as unregistered
> trademarks, company names, trading names, designations of origin,
> geographical names, family and personal names, etc. Therefore, the IRT
> recommends that the IP Clearinghouse should be structured so that it can
> accommodate a panoply of such rights even if they are applicable to only a
> small number of registries.”*
>
> I would like to discuss the rationale behind this.
>
> Best,
>
> Massimo
>
>
> *From:* J. Scott Evans [mailto:jsevans at adobe.com <jsevans at adobe.com>]
> *Sent:* 02 May 2017 14:57
> *To:* Massimo Vittori <Massimo at origin-gi.com>; Greg Shatan <
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
> *Cc:* J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
> I think Massimo has hit on the correct perspective. The protection
> mechanism for GIs is not consistent. Given this reality, the TMCH should
> (at this stage at least) only include those GIs that are also registered
> trademarks. I hereby again support Paul McGrady’s proposal.
>
> J. Scott
>
> <image002.gif>
> *J. Scott Evans*
> 408.536.5336 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel)
> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
> Director, Associate General Counsel
> 408.709.6162 <(408)%20709-6162> (cell)
> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
> Adobe. Make It an Experience.
> jsevans at adobe.com
> www.adobe.com
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Massimo <
> Massimo at origin-gi.com>
> *Date: *Monday, May 1, 2017 at 11:49 PM
> *To: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Jonathan Agmon <
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
> *Cc: *"J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
> Greg, Jonathan,
>
> my point is not whether GIs are equivalent to trademarks. The crucial
> issue is another: As part of the TRIPs agreement, every country in the
> world should protect GIs (no obligations as to the system to do so, but
> still obligation to give protection). There are at lest 8.000 GIs
> registered in the world through transparent processes that can be easily
> verifiable.
>
> I would like to discuss the practical problems, if any, to recognize this
> is the TMCH and beyond. As someone mentioned, this might take longer to
> analyze within the WG, but I think it is worth embarking on such discussion.
>
> If they get recognition, GIs can be an opportunity and increase the use of
> new gTLDs by a multitude of actors around the world.
>
> Best, Massimo
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Sent: *‎01.‎05.‎2017 19:07
> *To: *Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
> *Cc: *J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
> Jonathan,
>
> I think you are incorrect in your statement of the USPTO's position
> regarding GIs.
>
> First, the document you rely on is clearly a document specifically written
> in the context of TRIPS.  It is not "the USPTO's position on GIs."  TRIPS
> *separately* classifies different types of Intellectual Property as
> follows:
>
> 1. Copyright and Related Rights
>
> 2. Trademarks
>
> 3. Geographical Indications
>
> 4. Industrial Designs
>
> 5. Patents
>
> 6. Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits
>
> 7. Protection of Undisclosed Information
>
> (This also answers your question to Paul McGrady regarding which treaties
> have differing treatment of GIs and trademarks).
>
> Second, this document was created in the specific context of a
> TRIPS-related trade dispute, where the EU contended that the US had failed
> to satisfy the TRIPS requirement that the US provide some form of
> protection to GIs.  As a result, the USPTO needed to demonstrate that it
> was satisfying the TRIPS requirement, by showing that it was possible to
> protect GIs in the US in some fashion -- i.e., under trademark law.  As the
> document states regarding the use of trademark law to protect GIs: "In
> addition to fulfilling all of the requirements of substantive GI and
> trademark obligations in TRIPS, this system meets the requirement for
> national treatment and the obligations in TRIPS regarding enforcement."
>
> Third, reading the document as a whole, it's the position of the USPTO is
> that GIs may be protected through trademark law, as the United States does,
> and therefore *for US law purposes*, GIs "may be viewed as a subset of
> trademarks" when determining how to protect them.  It is clear that it is
> not the US position that the various forms of *sui generis *and *ad hoc *GI
> protection in various jurisdictions are a subset of trademark protection.
> It is also clear that it is not the US position that GIs and trademarks are
> indistinguishable or identical.  This is consistent with TRIPS and WIPO
> treatment of GIs as separate and distinct types of IP.
>
> As such, it is clear that the US position is that GIs can only be
> protected under US law to the extent that they meet the existing standards
> for trademarks (including, when applicable, certification marks or
> collective marks).  In the context of TRIPS, it is clear that the US
> position is that the US trademark system is sufficient to meet the TRIPS
> requirements for "equivalent" national protection of GIs.
>
> None of this supports the proposition that non-trademarks (and GIs are
> "non-trademarks" unless and until they are afforded trademark protection
> under trademark laws) should be introduced into the TMCH.
>
> Greg
>
>
> *Greg Shatan*C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428>
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Jonathan Agmon <
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> wrote:
>
> When you say there is no agreement on the fact the GIs are not a subset of
> trademarks, are you saying that the USPTO's position is also wrong?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <image003.png>
> Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森)
> Advocate, Director
> Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York)
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
> www.ip-law.legal
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ip-law.legal&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2a527ab7ab484776d14108d49127704b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636293045965650537&sdata=ZlE9FTXs3TsltKAlC7BE5X8V0uKRs04gSz6cOrE6EhQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
> *T* SG +65 6532 2577 <+65%206532%202577>
> *T* US +1 212 999 6180 <(212)%20999-6180>
> *T* IL +972 9 950 7000 <+972%209-950-7000>
> *F* IL +972 9 950 5500 <+972%209-950-5500>
> Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd.
> 133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE
> 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL
> This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise
> protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have
> received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it
> from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to
> anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming
> e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security
> of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.
>
>
> On 1 May 2017, at 23:30, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Jonathan,
>
> There is no agreement that all GIs are a subset of trademarks.  If a GI is
> registered as a trademark under a national law, then it is welcome in the
> TMCH.  My proposal makes that clear.
>
> What you are proposing is not that.  You are proposing that all GIs be
> treated as trademarks even if they are not registered as trademarks under a
> national law.  There is no broad international consensus on this point (as
> evidenced by the divide within the IPC itself which is playing out on the
> larger PDP WG list).  Further, there is zero current policy within ICANN
> allowing for GIs which are not otherwise registered as trademarks under a
> national law to be included in the policy.  Zero.  You are suggesting a
> change in ICANN Policy.  That cannot be done without thinking through the
> implications and the potential implementation issues, and that takes time –
> in this case, at least months, but perhaps even more.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Agmon [mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
> <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 01, 2017 10:22 AM
> *To:* icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>
> *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>; J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
> Paul,
>
> Since GIs are a subset of trademarks, which policy exactly did you have in
> mind requiring changes.
> If the proposal only allows GIs registered in national trademark registers
> or their GI alternative, what different implementation you think is
> required aside from clarifying to the TMCH that it can record registered
> GIs because they are a subset of trademarks, exactly like collective marks?
>
> I fail to see the issue when the changes discussed in relation to other
> questions on the charter seem more far reaching and complicated.
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> <image001.png>
> Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森)
> Advocate, Director
> Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York)
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
> www.ip-law.legal
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ip-law.legal&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2a527ab7ab484776d14108d49127704b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636293045965650537&sdata=ZlE9FTXs3TsltKAlC7BE5X8V0uKRs04gSz6cOrE6EhQ%3D&reserved=0>
> *T* SG +65 6532 2577 <+65%206532%202577>
> *T* US +1 212 999 6180 <(212)%20999-6180>
> *T* IL +972 9 950 7000 <+972%209-950-7000>
> *F* IL +972 9 950 5500 <+972%209-950-5500>
> Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd.
> 133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE
> 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL
> This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise
> protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have
> received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it
> from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to
> anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming
> e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security
> of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.
>
>
> On 1 May 2017, at 23:01, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> I’m not artificially amending anything.  You are proposing a policy
> change.  In ICANNland, Policy changes are always followed by implementation
> and, generally speaking, the PDP WG should send some signals about possible
> implementation along with the proposed policy.  There is no such thing as
> suggesting a sweeping change to Policy like you are proposing, without also
> building out what that would look like.  If you are proposing a policy
> change with no thought to how it will be implemented, I think most of us
> who have been around ICANN awhile will tell you that won’t fly.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Agmon [mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
> <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:41 PM
> *To:* icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>
> *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>; J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> I most certainly have not.
>
> The USPTO classifies GIs as a subset of trademarks. Most other countries
> on the planet view them similarly as an indication of source of goods and
> they are registered in either national trademark registries or specific GI
> registries.
>
> What I stated was that GIs registered in both national trademark registry
> and national GI registry should enter the TMCH. No more, no less; or as
> some of the other colleagues on the list would put it – period. J
>
> The fact that you disagree that GIs can serve and do serve as trademarks
> is your own view and opinion, which you are mostly certainly entitled
> thereto. Thus, if you want to go ahead and suggest an alternative proposal
> to mine which recommends working on a GICH or other Claims/Sunrise
> processes, please go ahead. Otherwise, kindly don't artificially amend my
> proposal to include in it language I did not put in.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> <image001.png>
> Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森)
> Advocate, Director
> Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York)
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
> www.ip-law.legal
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ip-law.legal&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2a527ab7ab484776d14108d49127704b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636293045965650537&sdata=ZlE9FTXs3TsltKAlC7BE5X8V0uKRs04gSz6cOrE6EhQ%3D&reserved=0>
> *T* SG +65 6532 2577 <+65%206532%202577>
> *T* US +1 212 999 6180 <(212)%20999-6180>
> *T* IL +972 9 950 7000 <+972%209-950-7000>
> *F* IL +972 9 950 5500 <+972%209-950-5500>
> Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd.
> 133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE
> 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL
> This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise
> protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have
> received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it
> from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to
> anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming
> e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security
> of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.
>
>
> On 1 May 2017, at 4:01, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:
>
> You have Jonathan.  Under current policy as implemented by the Board in
> the AGB, we don’t currently have a clearinghouse mechanism to hold GIs that
> are not also registered as trademarks nor do we have any Sunrise-like or
> Claims-like mechanisms to use any future GI data that may be lodged in a
> GICH.  The TMCH took months to develop and so would a GICH.  I see no
> reason to assume that GIs should automatically co-reside with trademarks in
> the TMCH nor any reason to assume that the parameters of any Claims or
> Sunrises based on GI data would be co-extensive with TM Claims and
> Sunrise.  If this GIs issue persists, i.e. we do anything with it other
> than a recommendation asking the GNSO Council to ask the Board to tell the
> TMCH operator to stop letting GIs in and retire the ones they have let in,
> we will be developing new policy (not insisting on accurate implementation
> of old policy) and thus starting from scratch to address it.  Any effort to
> develop new RPMs will add months (years?) to this process.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Agmon [mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
> <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:55 AM
> *To:* Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>; J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>; icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
> Paul,
>
> Who suggested "that a separate GICH be built along with GISunrise and
> GIClaims"?
>
>
> I didn't see such a proposal...
>
>
> Perhaps you can direct us to one?
>
>
> Thanks?
>
>
>
> <image001.png>
> Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森)
> Advocate, Director
> Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York)
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
> www.ip-law.legal
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ip-law.legal&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2a527ab7ab484776d14108d49127704b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636293045965650537&sdata=ZlE9FTXs3TsltKAlC7BE5X8V0uKRs04gSz6cOrE6EhQ%3D&reserved=0>
> *T* SG +65 6532 2577 <+65%206532%202577>
> *T* US +1 212 999 6180 <(212)%20999-6180>
> *T* IL +972 9 950 7000 <+972%209-950-7000>
> *F* IL +972 9 950 5500 <+972%209-950-5500>
> Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd.
> 133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE
> 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL
> This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise
> protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have
> received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it
> from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to
> anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming
> e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security
> of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.
>
> *From:* icannlists at winston.com
> *Sent:* 30 April 2017 20:00
> *To:* jmalcolm at eff.org; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
> Thanks Jeremy.  I think the problem came up because the TMCH operator has
> let a few in under an assumption, even though no one can find any guidance
> in the GNSO Policy, IRT Recommendations, STI Report, Board Resolutions or
> the AGB supporting the notion.  If this group doesn’t affirmatively say
> “stop that” then presumably the TMCH operator will keep doing it and more
> GIs will get in.  So, unless we are happy with the status quo where the
> TMCH operator is letting in things no one intended to be let in, I think we
> have to address the issue.
>
> Even so, there are those on the list who want GIs to be welcome into the
> TMCH or that a separate GICH be built along with GISunrise and GIClaims.
> While these things are not necessary off-charter, such activities could
> easily add a year or more to this PDP.  That is not my favorite outcome.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-
> bounces at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy
> Malcolm
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 29, 2017 8:22 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
>
> On 29/4/17 6:32 am, Jonathan Agmon wrote:
>
> The USPTO is in the US. Perhaps the EPO's and many other Trademark
> Offices' positions is also relevant. My point, which I feel I am not
> getting through, is that the US positron is not the only one.  Nearly every
> country on the planet has some laws relating to GI protection and I am
> arguing most of them view them as a form of trademarks.  I don't see the
> reason why not to include a registered GI in the TMCH. They are after all
> trademarks, when registered. Can you help me out here to understand your
> objection and the reasons for it? If others (non US countries) see GIs as
> trademarks and allow them to be registered, why exclude them?
>
>
> Forgive my ignorance, has this discussion happened elsewhere?  The
> proposition that GIs should be recognized alongside trademarks in the DNS
> is surely a far bigger one than the RPMs working group.  Not the kind of
> thing that we could just slip in as an assumption.  I for one would
> certainly have a lot more to say about the merits of recognizing GIs in the
> DNS, if that were our discussion.  But I doubt it's a discussion for this
> working group.
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm
>
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>
> https://eff.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feff.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2a527ab7ab484776d14108d49127704b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636293045965650537&sdata=M7jbXsB3Nj74BKIky3iDRkI6ttwDjkknOsHRMvCZ92w%3D&reserved=0>
>
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
>
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <(415)%20436-9333>
>
>
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F11%2F27%2Fkey_jmalcolm.txt&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2a527ab7ab484776d14108d49127704b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636293045965650537&sdata=0pFwVhTxKisQ4u15Psg4NE98rm%2BA8v4XhitEgciB%2BBc%3D&reserved=0>
>
> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
>
>
> ------------------------------
> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
> message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
> under applicable tax laws and regulations.
>
>
> ************************************************************
> ************************
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
> viruses.
> ************************************************************
> ************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************
> ************************
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
> viruses.
> ************************************************************
> ************************
>
>
>
> ************************************************************
> ************************
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
> viruses.
> ************************************************************
> ************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2a527ab7ab484776d14108d49127704b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636293045965650537&sdata=WD9nLKJRx4V%2BevaqC3HiPRsHvVcwnAWzEFuMv90CAcU%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170503/710531b6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Allegato di posta elettronica.png
Type: image/png
Size: 171108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170503/710531b6/Allegatodipostaelettronica-0001.png>