[GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12

Sun Oct 21 08:15:41 UTC 2018

George:
My reply below to your responses earlier this week in order (delayed due to travel):
Your responses were unpersuasive and leave my arguments against proposal 12 unrefuted for the following reasons.
1A: You can’t walk away from that argument by simply saying "we all understand that affects all disputes". While you admit that registrant data in the Whois database, already unverified and unvetted, and further masked by GDPR, including the identity of malicious domain holders, your proposal compounds the inherent challenge to rightsholders by adding a race against time to identify the true registrant under an artificial deadline, even when there is no actionable bad faith use upon which they are alerted to act.  In fact proposal 12 encourages sign-up and wait by malicious domain owners - until the claims bar date arrives, then the registrant springs to bad faith use with impunity.  It also purports to allow "tacking" toward your bar date based purely on the passage of time, so that a registrant operating a legitimate non infringing site as Dr Jekyll paves the way for a successor in interest to whom he sells after the bar date, Mr. Hyde, to convert the site into a hotbed of phishing and infringement again, with impunity, solely because time has passed since the original purchase date. That is a "gotcha" without reason or basis which should not be foisted upon consumers, let alone rightsholders.
1B: If you meant that creation date, why doesn't the  proposal expressly state "Whois Creation Date". Without context the ambiguity remains and the proposal still is ambiguous in the remaining terms as noted.
1.C. You make my point. Even if a rightsholder pays the additional cost of investigative services and domain tools there is no clear record available anywhere on the Internet that definitively provides a publicly available list of successive owners and transfer dates like the grantor/grantee index at a local county recorder's office for terrestrial real estate. Name it George, you can't.
Under your response to 1C you also wrote, "Folks who respond can document things accordingly." Do you really believe with a straight face that complainant's can rely upon respondents to produce and submit a list of prior registrants accurately representing changes in ownership and uses made of their disputed domain?  Show me any case where that has happened to date. Under GDPR, how would a respondent have better access than complainant to registrant data other than perhaps their immediate predecessor in interest.

2.  Wrong. You wrote: "Use is an entirely separate part of the 3rd prong of bad faith."  How is it "entirely separate" when the text of the 3rd prong, as you referred to it, separates "registered" from "used" by only three words "and is being"  as in:
"(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" UDRP Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(iii) .

Note the conjunctive AND as referenced in my prior email. As noted I object to this proposal to be submitted for public comment as it has no accounting for the reality of changes in use. Registration AND use, the conjunctive basis for bad faith, which you intentionally bifurcated in your recitation of prong three in your response, because your limitation period proposal bars claims against a domain solely on time passage after registration, no matter what bad faith use ultimately follows. The proposal's  purpose is to escalate the direct costs of enforcing claims through added investigation, uncertain jurisdiction, delay and abuse to rightsholders calculating whether they can justify litigating a claim in court without the benefit of the UDRP or URS. For most small family businesses that cost is not just scary, that is defeat. But unlike defeated cybersquatting respondents, they cannot buy another $10 domain, put up another counterfeit site the next day and pass themselves off as another business to phish from.  The rightsholder's tarnished brand or phished customer base may mean the business whose reputation took 20 years to build is over.

3. Your response suddenly defers and says "Whether or not domain names are "intellectual property" doesn't affect the proposal", yet both your rationale and evidence in support of your proposal rely almost entirely upon the premise of domains as intellectual property. In you rationale you decry domain names as being treated as "second-class citizens that are somehow inferior in standing to TMs, copyrights and patents" and as evidence you suggest tacking of priority among successive owners should be permitted as it is with TM, copyright and patent - yet your proposal would do so without reference to use - which TM would require. As for copyright and patent, I have seen no evidence of a domain registered as a creative work or an invention. And as you note, a copyright is not a trademark, but that does not support domain names as intellectual property or your proposal.

4. This is true without your proposal, so there is no reason to add it, but see 5.

5. The premise of your comment is without support and is not true. No George, as a lawyer I will not accept your mischaracterization of my criticism of your proposal  as making me "critical of courts" when nothing could be further from the truth. And I will not be baited into criticizing any of the jurisdictions you suggest. On the contrary, far from being critical, for those who can afford them I consider the options available in courts to aggressively enforce trademark rights against phishing or infringing domain names extremely useful, such as in rem actions, electronic discovery, seizure of financial assets, freezing of bank accounts, recovery of monetary damages, fees and costs, etc.

But my respect for these finely crafted court benefits do not change my objection to your proposal, because it would force underrepresented, unsuspecting small and family businesses (smaller than your Microsoft example anyway) from small communities,  to travel to the ends of the earth to litigate after they have been preyed upon by speculating malicious domain abusers, to hire counsel in a language they do not speak, follow rules, customs or conventions affecting their rights they had no control over and never agreed to, perhaps without progressive laws recognizing domain name dispute claims similar to ACPA, and if they are able to obtain judgement, spending still more money and time to locate and enforce it against the distant defendants to force them to give up a domain or perhaps recover damages.

Forcing complainants to litigate in remote jurisdictions, may also open other stakeholders such as registries and registrars to defend liability if those jurisdictions do not recognize the same safe harbors, exclusions and limitations of liability for contributory infringement or other forms of contributory liability established under progressive legislation such as ACPA. It could also promote forum shopping in remote "complainant friendly" courts beyond the reach of ICANN service provider contracts or WG review that may provide less assurance of appellate review and oversight than the summary proceedings offered under the UDRP and URS. So while it is true that litigation could offer complainants who could afford it court ordered benefits not present in ADR such as those set forth above, it also could allow for impleading registries and registrars as third party defendants. All of these court benefits present costs which malicious domain owners do not face under the whack-a-mole lottery of the UDRP/URS.

And to more clearly address your mischaracterization and demonstrate my respect for the courts, George let's assume for the moment under your proposals to destroy UDRP/URS, that every one of the distant courts in which a family business would then be forced to litigate a domain dispute would be stellar, similar to a claimant's home jurisdiction in language, custom, convention, local rules, available experienced counsel and local laws recognizing domain claims and rights like ACPA. Now show me any of those courts that could guarantee resolution of a domain dispute within 90 days for $1500 (like the UDRP) or $500 (like the URS). Putting domain dispute resolution beyond the reach of small and family businesses is sufficient reason to dismiss your proposal as unjust and unacceptable.

Without the UDRP/URS options, open-ended litigation in remote locations is as scary to a complainant, if not more, as the fear you speculate a UDRP complaint brings to a registrant. The difference is the phishing or infringing domain cost the defendant less than $10 but its abuse may have cost the rightsholder a lifetime to earn  its reputation, mitigate a data breach of its customers from phishing, lost business, etc. The proposal presents issues dangerous to the integrity and stability of the Internet and  should not be supported for public comment.

Best regards,
Scott

Please click below to  use my booking calendar to schedule:
  a 15-minute call    a 30-minute call    a 60-minute call

Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP
101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin at VLPLawGroup.com

-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:57 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12

Hi Scott,

Responding to the issues you raised in order:

1.A. Not going to get into the whole "who is a registrant" issue, given the GDPR. Certainly we all understand that affects all disputes, and is not limited to my proposal.
1.B. Creation date is visible in WHOIS, e.g. for EXAMPLE.COM it's at:

https://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=example.com&type=domain

Creation Date: 1995-08-14T04:00:00Z

for https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMath.com&c=E,1,ddhduZ8c-Xk7P98s5R2GYzUuiLX8o7g4BgQivuA4IrVnZr6rOa_Dwy39QFACzeimYO36prvw8LmYhTdY_v8GudEpVw5bumMBrG_04oalXaqQxcA,&typo=1 it is at:
https://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=math.com&type=domain

Creation Date: 1998-09-10T04:00:00Z

This is not open to interpretation/misinterpretation like "Registration Date"

1.C. Transfer dates are not stored in WHOIS currently, for *existing* disputes (where transfer of ownership is claimed as the new date).
Folks who respond can document things accordingly. Or, heck, complainants can send a C&D first, actually reach out to the domain owner, instead of using UDRP as a *first* resort. WHOIS history at places like DomainTools can also be used to guess at these dates, as is done today. The "years of precedent" that you point to were all wrongly decided, as the Gopets decision demonstrates.

2. Use is an entirely separate part of the 3rd prong of bad faith.

3. Whether or not domain names are "intellectual property" doesn't affect the proposal. See GoPets or https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fVoyuer.com&c=E,1,JLkZ8FYzB5nEL7idJQFpN1qU_TzWJxZsRZqEVf5QwamBjqyXvBYRuo3LhGvkFdVmiAgF-vzOOgX_hKN4NYylKL6lPj4jWb84Yw5ekUScjFom&typo=1, i.e. how a successor-in-interest is passed *all* the rights of the predecessor, including priority rights. Also, a domain name right doesn't need to be linked to trademark rights to still be considered IP. Take a look at copyrights that can't be TMs. Yet copyrights are still IP (a different type of IP).

4. You can use the courts, to go after *use* in bad faith (as you can today, even for domains that are not registered in bad faith faith).
Your remedies would be different (e.g. not necessarily transfer of the domain name, but ordering the registrant to cease the infringing use).
Furthermore, you can still go after obviously-malicious domains that are never used early, if they have no conceivably good faith use, today. e.g. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fgoogle-registration-2018.horse&c=E,1,4Tm-7L4i2__zadlgs8HF3Xc6bqWAbfTZCDn83apH9v-6QpJ-cllTfLXA7_R0BqzDrJ7Uz7zyeGZeW7gARHkIPyNDDpppfuACsmIQ2-8KI0KA-7K3uU4,&typo=1 need not be used at all, to lose a UDRP/URS.

5. You seem to be very critical of the courts. Which specific national courts do you have a problem with? Canada? USA? UK? France? China?
Japan? Here's a list of all the countries that have registrars (for "mutual jurisdiction" purposes):

https://www.internic.net/origin.html

Tell me which ones are "rogue" in your eyes.

What's funny is that often the same folks who are critical of national courts are entirely uncritical when asked "Which nation's TMs should be barred from the TMCH?" There, the answer is "A TM is a TM is a TM"
and that if one has a problem with that TM, take it up with "the courts"!! (e.g. all the dubious TMs being used in the sunrise period to game the system)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E,1,xQao-gWOcq_UTyCCitq920IPLEn6R5TICqG7lHA28y0keFTrz8z8grgqJ1AzDJ5-zGsob2OGwYgxJPQoGajQL5udmYAwSPJPYXZ0p3-40w,,&typo=1

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Scott Austin <SAustin at vlplawgroup.com> wrote:
> George:
> Thanks for the update. Per Brian's reality check I see the following
> showstopper issues (for me anyway) and do not support the proposal on
> these
> grounds:
> 1. Text of proposal creates, not clarifies ambiguity.
> The URS and UDRP policies shall be changed to require that
> complainants (excluding prior registrants of the domain name) prove
> that a domain name was created in bad faith (with the creation date of
> the domain name being the relevant date), replacing the current
> ambiguous registered in bad faith standard. In the event that a prior
> registrant of the domain name brings a dispute as complainant, they
> instead need only prove that a domain name was acquired in bad faith
> (with the acquisition date of the domain name by the current
> registrant being the relevant date). All other remaining prongs of the
> 3-part test shall continue as before (e.g. use in bad faith, no legitimate interest, confusingly similar to a TM).
>
>
> “Prior registrants” - in this instance you refer to registrant but you
> dismiss the term registered as ambiguous. Yet one becomes a registrant
> by registering a domain name on a date certain. However where do you
> look online (especially after GDPR) to confirm someone is a "prior registrant"?
> There is no grantor/grantee deed index at the local county recorder
> office that publicly discloses not only the current registrant, but
> each registrant prior to the current one where a change in ownership
> has occurred. And what is to preclude an original registrant from
> using an alias or dba and just changing ownership in the underlying “original” registrant organization.
> None of ownership data is authenticated or policed, except at the
> credit card swipe stage. Maybe creation should be tied and displayed based on that.
> “creation” and “creation date” – how is this more accurate than
> “registration date or initial registration date. Is creation an
> earlier moment, when the domain is approved in a board room, purchased
> by a promoter to be assigned to the company that will use it,
> requested? Searched for availability on whois? I could make a case
> filled with unique time consuming fact and circumstance checking that
> each one of those stages in the decision to acquire and use a domain
> was its “creation”. And why the carve out for prior registrants? Why
> not prior creators if that is the operative term. It doesn’t work.
> “Acquisition Date” – is this a date stated in a contract that a
> complainant can’t find. Registration date is the only date in whois that is available.
> This would undo or compromise years of precedent based on registration
> date and again creates the ambiguity of what circumstances demonstrate
> acquired and how do you investigate that. Unacceptable and no evidence
> this improves upon the status quo in clarity or effectiveness for intended purpose.
>
> And what about use – is this part of creation? Does your proposal open
> the door to the fatal disjunctive “registered or used” in bad faith,
> perceived as the death knell to the secondary market for domain names.
> Be careful what you wish for. I don’t see use mentioned anywhere in
> your proposal text, but see point E below.
> Domains as intellectual property. This is the biggest problem I have
> with your insistence that all domain names are created equally.  What
> about
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fgeneric.com&c=E,1,
> c32VpVk7DSywSqKQ60cUB6GPCa8xEtPy33vZDIPl12619YBH-Cb-weg6ELtjirBDYpsk2g
> OdL872SGMsXxdtnAOGxf4wmbRurmRMWVOh59OUeS4bFTE,&typo=1 Is a domain that
> cannot acquire trademark rights intellectual property? Sounds like
> merely what it is: a URL address licensed to a user by a registrar
> that conveniently converts machine readable numbers to text readable
> and more easily remembered by humans. Without your infusions of
> contract or trademark use this does not clearly fall under the
> category of IP and your argument fails.  As other’s have pointed out
> you frame your argument by conveniently using examples of domain names
> infused with intellectual property rights, either 1) by defining
> domain names as such in an agreement which in context could have added
> URLs or website addresses or maybe something more remote as long as
> agreed to by the parties; or 2) a “domain like” name comprised in part of an unregistered trademark term  used as a component of a registered words plus design mark in a stylized font with a slogan. The slogan is a marketing device for an IP firm, not law or a ruling on domain names as intellectual property.
> If a string of serial domain acquisitions has renders the final
> successor beyond bad faith no matter how maliciously they use their
> purchased domain registration, what is the intent? Is the intent that
> domains like sleeper cells can be stockpiled in the thousands without
> use, so they do not come to the attention of rightsholders, which
> would first target use of a domain to support a phishing site or
> infringing site or even a parking site incorporating a deceptive
> misspelling of a trademark. Thus flying under the radar until
> sufficient repurchase and time elapse while they appear innocuous,
> they pass a date (your affiliated proposal suggests 2 years I
> believe) after which they can be sold on a secondary domain market to
> a successor registrant who now can spring into being putting a full
> blown phishing site, counterfeit site of the rights holder’s mark
> without worry of a summary proceeding as it is time barred or bad
> faith only applies to the initial registrant present at “creation” who
> financed the “sleeper period” but now can sell their vintage protected
> incontestable domains at a premium.
> But that’s not all. What your proposal’s Complainant/Respondent or
> rightsholder/disputed registrant two-dimensional approach fails to
> consider is that trademark rights are 3 dimensional. The trademark act
> in the US at least and I would venture most countries is a consumer protection act.
> You’ve left out consumers.  Why should consumers, those folks that TM
> and Circle R were “created” to protect from passed off inferior goods
> or services be subjected to confusion under your proposal because a
> rightsholder waited too long to protect its rights, or failed to get
> to a particular domain until it had changed hands multiple times while
> they used their limited resources to chase the most blatant offenders.
> There is no evidence that the benefit to registrants afforded by your
> proposal outweighs the cost to rightsholders AND the consuming public.
> You have made it clear for some unsubstantiated, unproven reason the
> you want to make it hard for rightsholders to protect their marks and
> consumers, or eliminate summary proceedings altogether, forcing
> rightholders to march into court in distant regions of the globe, in
> jurisdictions where courts may take years to hear a case or may not
> recognize the same luxuries of due process and review, shortened
> statutes of limitations, lack technical understanding, etc. This would
> be the case already with many ccTLDs. The prize here appears to be
> taking away from rightsholders well-established protections that apply
> to the most valuable TLD - .com. For the foregoing reasons, George, I object to and do not support proposal 12.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Scott
>
> Please click below to  use my booking calendar to schedule:
>   a 15-minute call    a 30-minute call    a 60-minute call
>
>
> Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP
> Law Group LLP
> 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
> Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin at VLPLawGroup.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of George
> Kirikos
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 12:55 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>; Ariel Liang
> <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12
>
> Hi again,
>
> Attached is the updated revised version of URS Proposal #12, simply
> adding the Gopets v. Hise case citation in section #8. Thanks to Brian
> for his "strong objection", otherwise I wouldn't have remembered that
> there was case law to show that this proposal would align the UDRP with the law.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E
> ,1,zxbn2tiatvkzhTWqLCBws9UpWsXQfALYuHFBkumURXOj2rNgWiHDb5SMRHapRED2kjZ
> osRrEKzbsY9tcDWr5CcimUjT0IDk9PVjMk-qYCiPPPXI,&typo=1
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>> Hi Brian:
>>
>> I refer you to the following case in the California courts, that
>> referenced this exact topic:
>>
>> GOPETS v. Hise,
>>
>> http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/09/22/08-56110.pd
>> f
>>
>> (also listed on the WIPO Website at:
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2fexp
>> o
>> rt%2fsites%2fwww%2famc%2fen%2fdocs%2fd20060636circuitdecision.pdf&c=E
>> ,
>> 1,Zv_K5R1ftgPNTQiVMR_bC87QMECSVRKnYtZUp7s19bYEZH7pyDxPmrrOvZN6ZlDS9FK
>> m
>> TiTxL85qJLS83LA35hYYYZF8-y0WVrn51dOwmgcDmr41b_c,&typo=1
>> linked from
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2famc
>> %
>> 2fen%2fdomains%2fchallenged%2f&c=E,1,gY1N97-hyy-P1Z5o-hqKcm3Ev6O-wEnM
>> X
>> K3X-J_odUWYxGSzItAGVRQrpZrjfHSUXXwaVvftXV_forYiX6DTYDuIAL5QM5UbZGRZmk
>> F
>> f72p4SA,,&typo=1  )
>>
>> “”The primary question before us is whether the term “registration”
>> applies only to the initial registration of the domain name, or
>> whether it also applies to a re-registration of a currently
>> registered domain name by a new registrant. We hold that such
>> re-registration is not a “registration” within the meaning of § 1125(d)(1).”"
>>
>> [5] Like the text of § 8131(1)(A), the text of § 1125(d)(1)
>> considered in isolation does not answer the question whether “registration”
>> includes re-registration. Looking at ACPA in light of traditional
>> property law, however, we conclude that Congress meant “registration”
>> to refer only to the initial registration. It is undisputed that
>> Edward Hise could have retained all of his rights to
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fgopets.com&c=E,1,
>> -
>> VgBFYawV9wu9qv-RzSR6QGGiHEe8kEPwnaf4eVwHmF83L-LceMWXH7w_BufTEzBgmyTqV
>> b
>> PGpeXPqQRX8e1sL405GqpLLfW5D6FlfnUebdsGCTO_nI,&typo=1
>> indefinitely if he had main-
>> tained the registration of the domain name in his own name. *****We
>> see no basis in ACPA to conclude that a right that belongs to an
>> initial registrant of a currently registered domain name is lost when
>> that name is transferred to another owner. The general rule is that a
>> property owner may sell all of the rights he holds in property.****
>> GoPets Ltd.’s proposed rule would make rights to many domain names
>> effectively inalienable, whether the alienation is by gift,
>> inheritance, sale, or other form of transfer. Nothing in the text or
>> structure of the statute indi- cates that Congress intended that
>> rights in domain names should be inalienable.
>>
>> [6] We therefore hold that Digital Overture’s re-registration of
>>
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fgopets.com&c=E,1,
>> DF99RAI3ybmbOz_-PzuqFMbtBZxMird3X0lJuuBFBWtKjN6IZR7cxhqozpRUuNmZ6EoYy
>> udU-jXFUy4RHpf70psnP--oxffVLFx8UXhZA5rUXw,,&typo=1
>> was not a registration within the meaning of § 1125(d)(1).
>> Because Edward Hise registered
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fgopets.com&c=E,1,
>> 5
>>
>> JfuZSC5tr8d1NGTRclG7SA5HCEZEhyUmxBmgSJCj4PXlEA01vhXIu9EVO_ENPhLeH4_zP
>> IrZuAoMsg9-D0TQnIl7prICFDUhaVndrR_bcGdG5mg&typo=1
>> in 1999, long before GoPets Ltd. registered its service mark, Digital
>> Overture’s re-registration and continued ownership of
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fgopets.com&c=E,1,
>> 7pUeaPOYFpJL-G1dy4FHDNn4hOhKtBkTqZ6LNuK29a7LdNCY6CsvwYQ0Co-HIr8XKEH7r
>> Rwb_sQGBvhY5xGnOjo8Svxm2Fm5LGARyFhnjpGkH3LP2w,,&typo=1
>> does not violate § 1125(d)(1).
>>
>> There you have it. Have WIPO panels been observing this court
>> precedent? Has WIPO updated their "WIPO Views"? Of course not, even
>> though it's been published on WIPO's own website! Perhaps WIPO will
>> take steps to remove that case from their website, just like they
>> removed the PUPA.COM case involving my company??
>>
>> It's time to remove the ambiguity once and for all, and my proposal
>> does just that, and furthermore aligns it with court precedent and
>> common sense. I probably should have added this case to my revised
>> proposal. I'll do that shortly, and send it again.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=
>> E
>> ,1,6SO43nms3azu6w2FDDcjjOwLnUDLMqH8Z2fNCiOWXeSHJf1IOdbm13c7jIhwFaSCI8
>> Y
>> y9ymQjmKdiDXPO4BXpuLrxUkJTeqAWXWt0JHnDcGA_zkbTg,,&typo=1
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:13 PM, BECKHAM, Brian
>> <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
>> wrote:
>>> Speaking in my non-chair capacity, and mindful of the "low bar" that
>>> has been set for inclusion in the Initial Report, I would like to
>>> register the strongest of objections to this proposal.
>>>
>>> Not only would it give carte blanche to later-acquiring registrants
>>> to infringe a complainant's mark, but moreover, the claimed
>>> ambiguity blatantly mischaracterizes panel consensus described in
>>> the WIPO Overview, which does not reflect any "ambiguity" in how
>>> panels assess the applicable registration date.
>>>
>>> Perhaps one or two panelists or counsel who are members of this WG
>>> could add their views.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>>> George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:35 PM
>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg; Ariel Liang
>>> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12
>>>
>>> [re-sending from my correct email address]
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Attached is the revised version of URS Proposal #12, after
>>> discussions with Rebecca on how to handle the unintended
>>> consequences she identified in the original proposal. Many thanks to
>>> Rebecca for identifying the issue and the solution.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> George Kirikos
>>> 416-588-0269
>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c
>>> =
>>> E,1,odex5M2U4U5zyFqLlSBUNNjAReeUc74WjuV6TUe9H1I6Hc4cYo2XGYHt5kUGAMCk
>>> s
>>> 8t15KdME-B164MaOXo9-Gk-I72usQuOYvPYq8W60a4NlX9aQo-o&typo=1
>>>
>>> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic
>>> message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected
>>> information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please
>>> immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its
>>> attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for
>>> viruses prior to opening or using.
>
>
>
> This message contains information which may be confidential and
> legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use,
> copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained
> in the message. If you have received this message in error, please
> send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by
> VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.