<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">While we have not yet initiated our full WG discussion of the TMCH we shall be doing so in a few weeks.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">While I have not yet hard the opportunity to fully review the referenced materials, they would seem important in the context of sunrise registrations – to assure
that TM holders with legitimate use do not have their registration rights usurped with those who have registered identical marks without actual use.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">So thanks George for providing the links (albeit a tad prematurely) and thanks in advance to Greg for any further light you can shed on the matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Best to all, Philip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Virtualaw LLC</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">1155 F Street, NW</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Suite 1050</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Washington, DC 20004</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8597/Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8750/Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-255-6172/Cell</span></b><b><span style="color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Twitter: @VlawDC</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 20, 2016 8:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> George Kirikos<br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH -- false declarations of use, statistics from the USPTO<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">George,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greg<br>
<br>
On Saturday, August 20, 2016, George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=05be4815-5b70-41c6-b521-055aee7946c2</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.thebrandprotectionblog.com/uspto-announces-new-trademark-use-audit-program-in-proposed-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/default/files/documents/Post_Registration_Proof_of_Use_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.gov/articles/2016/06/22/2016-14791/changes-in-requirements-for-affidavits-or-declarations-of-use-continued-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-be-confused-about-whether-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>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;">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/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="1" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4633/12811 - Release Date: 08/15/16<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>