George,<div><br></div><div><span></span>Although I'm sure it's inadvertent, you are very significantly misinterpreting what you are presenting. Your conclusions are not supported by these materials. I'm at a party so I can't respond in detail but will do so as soon as I can.<br></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><br></div><div>Greg<br><br>On Saturday, August 20, 2016, George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi folks,<br>
<br>
I was doing some research on false declarations of trademark "use",<br>
and came upon some startling statistics that are relevant to our TMCH<br>
discussions.<br>
<br>
The following link summarizes some of the important research conducted<br>
by the USPTO:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=05be4815-5b70-41c6-b521-055aee7946c2" target="_blank">http://www.finnegan.com/<wbr>resources/articles/<wbr>articlesdetail.aspx?news=<wbr>05be4815-5b70-41c6-b521-<wbr>055aee7946c2</a><br>
<br>
"The results of the pilot program indicate that a substantial majority<br>
of foreign registrants, 73% under the Madrid Protocol and 65% under<br>
the Paris Convention, have submitted false declarations of use and<br>
have therefore received trademark protection to which they are not<br>
entitled in the United States."<br>
<br>
The same study was discussed in the following blog:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.thebrandprotectionblog.com/uspto-announces-new-trademark-use-audit-program-in-proposed-rule/" target="_blank">http://www.<wbr>thebrandprotectionblog.com/<wbr>uspto-announces-new-trademark-<wbr>use-audit-program-in-proposed-<wbr>rule/</a><br>
<br>
"...USPTO randomly audited 500 registrations with recently filed<br>
affidavits averring use. In addition to the usual specimen submitted<br>
for each class of goods or services, the USPTO asked registration<br>
owners to submit proof of use of their marks for two additional goods<br>
or services per class selected at random by the USPTO.<br>
<br>
During the two-year pilot program, the USPTO found that 51% of the<br>
audited registration owners were unable to satisfy these additional<br>
proof requirements. The USPTO cancelled 16% of the audited<br>
registrations in their entirety because the registration owners failed<br>
to respond to the request for additional proof or any other issues<br>
raised during the examination of the original affidavit. In addition,<br>
35% of the audited registration owners requested that some of the<br>
goods or services be deleted from their registration."<br>
<br>
The final report by the USPTO can be read in its entirety at:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Post_Registration_Proof_of_Use_Pilot_Final_Report%20.doc" target="_blank">https://www.uspto.gov/sites/<wbr>default/files/documents/Post_<wbr>Registration_Proof_of_Use_<wbr>Pilot_Final_Report%20.doc</a><br>
<br>
(sorry it's not a PDF)<br>
<br>
This huge amount of fraudulently registered marks has caused them to<br>
make some proposals a couple of months ago, see:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/06/22/2016-14791/changes-in-requirements-for-affidavits-or-declarations-of-use-continued-use-or-excusable-nonuse-in" target="_blank">https://www.federalregister.<wbr>gov/articles/2016/06/22/2016-<wbr>14791/changes-in-requirements-<wbr>for-affidavits-or-<wbr>declarations-of-use-continued-<wbr>use-or-excusable-nonuse-in</a><br>
<br>
"A register that does not accurately reflect marks in use in the<br>
United States for the goods/services identified in registrations<br>
imposes costs and burdens on the public."<br>
<br>
"The public relies on the register to determine whether a chosen mark<br>
is available for use or registration. Where a party's search of the<br>
register discloses a potentially confusingly similar mark, that party<br>
may incur a variety of resulting costs and burdens, such as those<br>
associated with investigating the actual use of the disclosed mark to<br>
assess any conflict, proceedings to cancel the registration or oppose<br>
the application of the disclosed mark, civil litigation to resolve a<br>
dispute over the mark, or changing plans to avoid use of the party's<br>
chosen mark. If a registered mark is not actually in use in the United<br>
States, or is not in use in connection with all the goods/services<br>
identified in the registration, these costs and burdens may be<br>
incurred unnecessarily. An accurate and reliable trademark register<br>
helps avoid such needless costs and burdens."<br>
<br>
Obviously, the exact same reasoning applies to the TMCH itself.<br>
<br>
In light of these truly startling statistics, I think we need to have<br>
much greater scrutiny of what marks get placed into the TMCH, despite<br>
claims of "use". Even specimens of use can be "gamed", as discussed at<br>
length in an article at:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.fr.com/news/dont-be-confused-about-whether-your-trademark-is-used/" target="_blank">http://www.fr.com/news/dont-<wbr>be-confused-about-whether-<wbr>your-trademark-is-used/</a><br>
<br>
which had numerous examples of "sham" transactions, sporadic, casual,<br>
or de minimis uses. e.g.:<br>
<br>
"- a single shipment of one jar of salt from one corporate officer to<br>
another for no charge;<br>
- sale for $2.50 of 12 bank book holders, followed by instructions not<br>
to offer them to prospective customers;<br>
- sale of a few dollars’ worth of women’s sportswear to a cooperating<br>
company which immediately returned the goods to the seller;"<br>
<br>
The TMCH needs to be aware of how the system can be gamed, given the<br>
financial incentives to do so, as do we as this policy is reviewed.<br>
<br>
Perhaps a random audit of TMCH registered marks should be done.<br>
Perhaps they should all be in a public database, so that there can be<br>
greater scrutiny by the public compared to a private/secret database.<br>
If it turns out that 51% or 65% or 73% don't pass muster, it would<br>
have great implications for our work.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org')">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>