[GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH

[Marie Pattullo]

Thanks Jason,

I can only speak for myself but no, this isn't our main concern and I apologise if I was unclear.

A branded goods company may own many trade marks - some, 100s (e.g. in the FMCG sector), some, one or a handful (SMEs, start-ups). In the EU, it's pretty straightforward to find out what TMs are registered and by whom - indeed, it's basic IP strategy to conduct a search of TM Registers to find out whether the TM you want to have is available, as no-one wants to face needless oppositions, a wasted marketing budget etc. So, as many in the WG have noted, if you want to find out which marks a right holder owns, you can.

The TMCH is a totally different thing. A brand that chooses to (pay to) put a TM into the TMCH does so for either commercial reasons (it may apply for a registration in a new gTLD) or enforcement reasons (to have notice if someone else is trying to register such a name). Brands with multiple TMs are unlikely to put all of them into the TMCH, so disclosing which ones it has chosen to put there also discloses its commercial/enforcement strategy - i.e. the TMs about which it is most concerned in the new gTLD space of the DNS.

It may not want to announce that to the market for a variety of reasons, either to its competitors (who will then know which of its 100s of TMs it considers most important in the new gTLD space) or to registries/registrars (we all remember some of the "premium pricing" concerns in the new round).

As for enforcement, I stress that the TMCH only gives the brand the possibility to be told if someone wants a DN including their TM: it clearly does not result in an automatic block on such a registration, for which there could of course be multiple valid reasons - not least different class and/or no confusion. However in the case of a malicious/bad faith (etc.) registration then yes, the brand would be on notice and could then choose to (pay to) take appropriate enforcement action, including (if appropriate) following the URS route. The brands that I know are not in the business of launching enforcement actions they know are unfounded; they're in the business of making products that consumers trust and choose to buy.

I can't comment on your scenario below as that has never been brought to me as a concern; the above has. And we fail to see any benefit in the TMCH being public.

I hope this is clear, and again apologise if I was not before.

Marie


From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 6:52 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH

Hi All,

Sorry for not being able to address this on yesterday's call - I was bounced from the Zoom and couldn't reconnect from my mobile.  After much consideration of the chat comments and statements during the past two calls I've parsed together the following strategy concerns that might be at issue.   It seems the opposition to an open/transparent TMCH have set forth the following rationale:

Large brand owners like the ability to file in "remote" jurisdictions with non-searchable DBs to gain a priority date that can later be used for priority presumably in the US under a Section 44 application under the Paris Convention.   For example, Party A could "secretly" register in say Mauritius or Jamaica (jurisdictions that I believe do not have searchable DBs), and then file a Section 44 with the USPTO when ready to "go public."   In this scenario, large brand owner obtains the earlier priority date in the US without having disclosed its "secret" brand plans or strategy.   Alternatively, there may also be a similar use case with a registration in the EU.  This is what I understand the opposition was presenting in the comments last week and again yesterday.

This use of the "secret TM priority" filing method is one thing, and I understand the ostensible business intelligence concerns to require such a tactic.   However, we are discussing this in the context of the TMCH.  How can these parties obtain Sunrise protection without proof of use?   This is even more challenging in the case of an EU registration that might not be based on actual use.

If the project is top secret and subject to heightened secrecy, how can the party then show legitimate use of the mark and obtain TMCH protection while maintaining its purported heightened secrecy?  What is the POU and what is the declarant stating to the TMCH?  Is this the position that the opposition is proffering to block transparency of the TMCH?

In addition, if I am correctly capturing how the method is employed in practice, it would be helpful to know if this practice is really in widespread use or rather an outlier, because I'm not yet seeing an important justification that outweighs the important benefits of an open TMCH.

Thanks,

Jason

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191011/47cc658c/attachment-0001.html>