[gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size

Petter Rindforth petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
Mon Sep 4 08:31:03 UTC 2017

Hi Brian, George & All,
I definitely don’t want to start a discussion here on what’s going on in another WG (everybody that are interested in that topic are welcome to join that WG).
Just wanted to clarify that the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG is in the final stage of working with a solution that hopefully will solve the immunity question and still offering both parties involved a clear and neutral dispute resolution process, without the need to change (or at least with no significant changes) of the current UDRP/URS.

Our first WG meeting was for more than three years ago, so make sure that we have deeply considered all aspects, comments and proposals from all groups of interest, with a special view on how IGO’s can use URS/UDRP.

As said, this topic is worked with in another WG and I gladly discuss it further in that WG. Hopefully, our solution will not mean that we give this WG a number of additional topics/open questions once it is time to work generally with the URS and in Step2 the UDRP.

Co-Chair IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG

Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu

This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
Thank you

2 september 2017 12:43:44 +02:00, skrev Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>:

> George,
> I am not seeking a reaction, but would like to nevertheless clarify/respond to an assertion you make in the context of the IGO curative rights WG, namely:
> "In another PDP (the IGO one), I didn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the position that some IGOs were taking, that they were unable to use the UDRP (because of the mutual jurisdiction clause, which could affect their claimed immunity). Do you know what won the day? Going out and doing research, and actually finding examples of UDRPs where IGOs expressly participated! Same for their claimed "inability to waive immunity" -- it's kind of funny how that argument was debunked, after a little bit of research brought to light examples of the World Bank (an IGO) filing lawsuits in US court. I could go on, and on, but if you want other examples, feel free to email me outside this list."
> You have not debunked anything.
> Indeed, IGOs, in responding to a request from the WG on which only you and a mere handful of others have participated (whether such participation by a few individuals with clear agendas represents a sound multistakeholder model is an altogether separate question) stated:
> "Submission to the UDRP and URS as currently drafted would necessitate waiving IGOs’ immunity from legal process, which would involve a specific decision taken at the highest levels of our governance structures."
> In other words, IGOs have not said they are categorically unable to use the UDRP, but that there are serious legal and institutional hurdles to doing so (at the least, sign off by the Office of Legal Counsel and Director General).
> Moreover, your research unearthing one or two instances in almost 20 years of the UDRP where one or two IGOs have opted to face those legal and institutional hurdles does not "debunk" the clear and unchanged position of IGOs.
> In that WG, when presented with evidence of abuse of IGO identities (there: on the heels of the Ebola crisis), rather than positively look for a solution that met the expressed needs of IGOs (not to mention GAC Advice), your WG has instead opted to "know better" and disregard legitimate concerns raised by IGOs -- there is nothing "funny" about this.
> Thank you for noting, and again, I am not looking for a reaction.
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170904/ed16ac86/attachment.html>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list