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

claudio di gangi ipcdigangi at gmail.com
Mon Sep 4 16:43:25 UTC 2017


Very helpful, thanks for providing this perspective!


On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:31 AM Petter Rindforth <
petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu> wrote:

> 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
> 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.
> Best,
> Petter
> Co-Chair IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG
> --
> Petter Rindforth, LL M
> Fenix Legal KB
> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
> 114 35 Stockholm
> Sweden
> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
> E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
> www.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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170904/9f9fcb7e/attachment.html>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list