<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>Actually, just to followup on my prior comment, the jurisdiction question is a bit more complex for the PDDRP than I earlier indicated. The actual PDDRP policy<br><br><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/pddrp">https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/pddrp</a><br><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/pddrp-04jun12-en.pdf">https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/pddrp-04jun12-en.pdf</a><br></div><br></div><div>mentions "court of competent jurisdiction challenging the Expert Determination of liability against the registry operator" in section 21.3<br></div><div><br></div>However, if you scroll down on that page, there's a newer document (PDF is undated) from October 2013 with the exact rules of the procedure. <br><br><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/pddrp-rules-15oct13-en.pdf">https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/pddrp-rules-15oct13-en.pdf</a><br><br>Those rules *do* mention a specific jurisdiction, as per section 3(b)(x), namely: "Complainant will submit, with respect to any challenges to a decision in the administrative proceeding, to the jurisdiction of the courts where the Registry has its principle place of business". <br><br></div>So, if we add a limitation period to the PDDRP, it should be that of the location of the Registry.<br><br></div>Sincerely,<br><br></div>George Kirikos<br>416-588-0269<br></div><a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><br><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><br><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:26 PM, George Kirikos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com" target="_blank">icann@leap.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>Steve brings up (indirectly) an interesting topic, namely that there is no "mutual jurisdiction" clause to the PDDRP (21.3 only says a "court of competent jurisdiction"). If a complaint (or appeal) was brought by one side in a jurisdiction that the other side doesn't accept, how would it be resolved? <br><br></div>Obviously it would have to be resolved by the court in which the law suit was brought (i.e as a defense to the action) and/or some other "superior" jurisdiction. [Perhaps some of the registrars, who have similar "court of competent jurisdiction" language in their registrar agreements might want to chime in......I hope that Tucows, for example, would ignore any orders from a Turkish or Iranian court for a Canadian or US-based registrant who obeys Canadian/US laws.]<br><br></div>So, if we modified the time limit in the manner he suggests, we have to be very careful to phrase things in such a manner as to not assume that a certain jurisdiction's time limits would actually apply. i.e. the location of the registry operator would definitely be a valid jurisdiction to bring an action against them. The preferred location of the TM holder / PDDRP complainant may or may not be a valid jurisdiction.</div><div><br></div>Sincerely,<br><br></div>George Kirikos<br>416-588-0269<br></div><a href="http://www.leap.com/" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br><div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Steve Levy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com" target="_blank">slevy@accentlawgroup.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div>George,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I understand the foundation of your idea - that parties should not have greater rights through the PDDRP than they would in a court of law. But, by the same token, they shouldn't have lesser rights either.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As such, I suggest revising your recommendation so that any time limit for bringing a PDDRP claim would be the longer of the applicable statute of limitations for such a claim in the complainant’s or respondent's jurisdictions if such claim were to have
been brought in the courts.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><font>Steve</font></div>
<div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><font face="Consolas,monospace"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<p style="padding:0px;margin:0px;font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:13.600000381469727px">
</p>
<p style="padding:0px;margin:0px"><img src="cid:D74E9783-4E9A-4A5E-A24A-FDF16E870B99" type="image/png"></p>
<p style="padding:0px;margin:0px"><span style="font-size:18px">Steven M. Levy, Esq.</span></p>
<p style="padding:0px;margin:0px"><span style="font-size:18px"><b>Accent Law Group, Inc.</b></span><br>
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.600000381469727px">301 Fulton St.</span></font><br>
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.600000381469727px">Philadelphia, PA 19147</span></font></p>
<p style="padding:0px;margin:0px;font-size:13.600000381469727px">United States</p>
<p style="padding:0px;margin:0px;font-size:13.600000381469727px">Phone: +1-215-327-9094<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com" target="_blank">slevy@AccentLawGroup.com</a></p>
<p style="padding:0px;margin:0px;font-size:13.600000381469727px">Website: <a title="www.accentlawgroup.com" href="http://www.accentlawgroup.com/" target="_blank">www.AccentLawGroup.com</a></p>
<p style="padding:0px;margin:0px;font-size:13.600000381469727px"><a title="www.accentlawgroup.com" href="http://www.accentlawgroup.com/" target="_blank"></a>LinkedIn: <a title="www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/" target="_blank">www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/</a> <br>
<span style="font-size:13.600000381469727px">________________________________________</span><br>
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the
reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.</p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div><div><div>
<div style="font-size:12px;font-family:Consolas,monospace"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12px;font-family:Consolas,monospace"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12px;font-family:Consolas,monospace">On 7/20/16, 1:49 PM, "<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of George Kirikos" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
on behalf of <a href="mailto:icann@leap.com" target="_blank">icann@leap.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<div style="font-size:12px;font-family:Consolas,monospace"><br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote style="font-size:12px;font-family:Consolas,monospace;border-left-color:rgb(181,196,223);border-left-width:5px;border-left-style:solid;padding:0px 0px 0px 5px;margin:0px 0px 0px 5px"><div><div>
<div>Hi folks,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't think this was brought up before yet in the context of the</div>
<div>PDDRP, but perhaps it can be added to the list of topics.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It would be very odd if complainants were allowed to bring a PDDRP for</div>
<div>a matter that was not able to be brought by them in a court of law,</div>
<div>because it was barred by the relevant statute of limitations. I think</div>
<div>amending the PDDRP to explicitly add a time limit for bringing a PDDRP</div>
<div>would make sense, to handle this situation. 2 years would be a</div>
<div>suitable limit, in my opinion, and would help ensure that complaints</div>
<div>are brought in a timely fashion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thoughts?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sincerely,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>George Kirikos</div>
<div>416-588-0269</div>
<div><a href="http://www.leap.com/" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a></div>
</div></div><span><div>_______________________________________________</div>
<div>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list</div>
<div><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a></div>
<div><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>