<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div class="MsoPlainText">I'm not sure what the value is in a 200+ nation
survey. All we will find is that no countries do everything exactly the
same way. Importantly, all of these RPMs are a matter of private contract
anyway; none of them reside (to my knowledge) independently in any national
legislation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">So, I think what we out to do is do what Phil suggested
earlier and use our time wisely to see if there are any incremental,
implementable improvements to the RPMs that our WG can suggest. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">Best,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">Paul<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 11:32 AM<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">To: John McElwaine
<<a href="mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Text/design marks<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">Thank you for the followup--that is very helpful. Given
what Deloitte has already done, which appears to go beyond what its mandate was
by including design marks (where Deloitte judges there is sufficient
separability), I think further guidance would be a very good idea. We may
also learn more when Deloitte responds to our additional questions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">Georgetown Law<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">703 593 6759<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:19 PM, John McElwaine
<<a href="mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Rebecca,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> I was working from the INTA Country Guide database,
which contains a summary of filing requirements. Many of the jurisdictions
listed state that they require a "depiction of the mark".
However, I do not believe that is enough guidance to develop a list to figure
out what distinctions are or aren’t available. My point was really that
this should be a question for Deloitte. I presume that they looked into this
issue to develop their rules. As I mentioned, I do not think that
there is any universally accepted term in all countries' trademark offices that
equates to a standard character mark in the U.S. Even if the concept is
recognized everywhere it is going to be a different field or name in the
trademark record, if listed at all (e.g., there are six types of mark in the
United States - see
<a href="http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=help&state=4809:nltdl1.1.1#Mark_Drawing_Code">http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=help&state=4809:nltdl1.1.1#Mark_Drawing_Code</a>);
in Chile it is a the "Tipo" field and, I believe, "Palabra
" for a word mark). I don't doubt that there are a large number of
jurisdictions that track the words in a trademark. As you have
identified, it is the proper terms/fields in these countries that we would need
to diligence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> John<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> -----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> [<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of
Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 2:20 AM<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> To: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Text/design marks<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Let me try my question about different kinds of word
marks again by asking a couple of people who participated in the chat if they
could elaborate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Martin Silva mentioned “mixed marks” in the civil
law countries, “text marks that are represented in an specific figurative way
(form+color) and are only protected in those designs.” Do you have any
particular countries in mind? That sounds like an important concept for this
discussion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> John McElwaine said: “Many countries apparently
require ‘a depiction’<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> of the mark with no distinction between text,
stylization or included designs.” Do you have specific countries in
mind? I think that could offer useful information to figure out what
distinctions are or aren’t available.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Sorry if I missed others, especially in the audio
portion—the transcript isn’t up yet.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Michael R Graham asked me in the chat: Please
provide cases supporting "weaker" protection statement for stylized
word registered marks.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> As I said on the call, there’s a distinction between
protection and infringement. Koke infringes Coke for soft drinks, but
Koke isn’t a “protected” mark of Coca-Cola’s. Unless the TMCH is supposed
to expand coverage of marks beyond what’s registered or validated by a court,
the fact that a stylized mark might (or might not) be infringed by a use that
doesn’t have the same stylization isn’t relevant. I agree with Greg
Shatan that “strength” of the mark isn’t relevant to what goes into the TMCH,
but precisely because that’s true we should be particularly careful to ensure
that marks that are only valid because of elements that can’t go into the
TMCH—that is, stylization or design elements—can’t have their textual portions
in the TMCH.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> For US jurisprudence on the limited scope of
stylized marks v.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> standard character marks:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 95 F.Supp.3d 350, (S.D.N.Y.
2015) (dealing with special form mark whose words were unprotectable absent
stylization), aff’d, Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 659 Fed.Appx. 55 (2d.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Cir. 2016); Time, Inc. v. Petersen Pub. Co., LLC,
173 F.3d 113, 118-19 (“[T]he law of trademark accords stronger protection to
the stylized version of certain words used as trademarks than to those words
themselves ….[T]rademark rights in the stylized appearance of a word are
distinct from trademark rights in the word itself”) (2d Cir.1999); Gruner +
Jahr USA Publ'g Div. of Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publ'g Co.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d 1072, 1077–78 (2d Cir.
1993) (observing, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> for purposes of a likelihood of confusion analysis,
that “the district <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> court ... properly distinguished between the
strength of the <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> [composite] trademark PARENTS [consisting of those
words rendered in a <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> particular visual style] and the weak, descriptive
nature of what it <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> called the ‘mere word ‘parents,’ ' ”); King of the
Mountain Sports, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F.3d 1084, 1090–91 (10th
Cir.1999) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> (holding that two differently stylized marks using
the same two words <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> were not similar); Neopost Industrie B.V. v. PFE
Intern., Inc., 403 <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> F.Supp.2d 669 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (registration of
stylized mark didn’t <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> extend protection to nonstylized uses); Federation
Internationale De <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Football Ass'n v. Nike, Inc., 285 F.Supp.2d 64,
72-73 (D.D.C. 2003) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> (“[E]ven after a descriptive term has become
distinct, its power to <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> preclude other uses of closely related descriptive
terms is diminished <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> where the senior owner has used its mark only in a
particular, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> stylized way. For even if that overall stylized mark
is strong, the <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> trademark value of the words themselves may be quite
weak.”); see also <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> In re K-T Zoe Furniture, Inc., 16 F.3d 390 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (stylized <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> form was registrable, but words alone were
descriptive and <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> unregistrable); Igloo Products Corp. v. Brantex,
Inc., 202 F.3d 814 <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> (5th Cir. 2000) (registration of composite mark
didn’t provide <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> presumption of validity for words alone); In re Box
Solutions Corp.,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1953 (TTAB 2006) (finding no
likelihood of confusion between two stylized marks despite identical goods and
overlap in words BOX and BOX SOLUTIONS).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Georgetown Law<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> 703 593 6759<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> Confidentiality Notice<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> This message is intended exclusively for the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain
information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally
exempt from disclosure.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">> If you are not the named addressee, you are not
authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part
of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete
all copies of this message.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText"><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p style=""> </o:p></div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Text/design marks<br>
From: Rebecca Tushnet <<a href="mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu">Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu</a>><br>
Date: Fri, April 14, 2017 9:32 am<br>
To: John McElwaine <<a href="mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
Thank you for the followup--that is very helpful. Given what Deloitte<br>
has already done, which appears to go beyond what its mandate was by<br>
including design marks (where Deloitte judges there is sufficient<br>
separability), I think further guidance would be a very good idea. We<br>
may also learn more when Deloitte responds to our additional<br>
questions.<br>
Rebecca Tushnet<br>
Georgetown Law<br>
703 593 6759<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:19 PM, John McElwaine<br>
<<a href="mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Rebecca,<br>
><br>
> I was working from the INTA Country Guide database, which contains a summary of filing requirements. Many of the jurisdictions listed state that they require a "depiction of the mark". However, I do not believe that is enough guidance to develop a list to figure out what distinctions are or aren’t available. My point was really that this should be a question for Deloitte. I presume that they looked into this issue to develop their rules. As I mentioned, I do not think that there is any universally accepted term in all countries' trademark offices that equates to a standard character mark in the U.S. Even if the concept is recognized everywhere it is going to be a different field or name in the trademark record, if listed at all (e.g., there are six types of mark in the United States - see <a href="http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=help&state=4809:nltdl1.1.1#Mark_Drawing_Code);">http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=help&state=4809:nltdl1.1.1#Mark_Drawing_Code);</a> in Chile it is a the "Tipo" field and, I believe, "Palabra " for a word mark). I don't doubt that there are a large number of jurisdictions that track the words in a trademark. As you have identified, it is the proper terms/fields in these countries that we would need to diligence.<br>
><br>
> John<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet<br>
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 2:20 AM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Text/design marks<br>
><br>
> Let me try my question about different kinds of word marks again by asking a couple of people who participated in the chat if they could elaborate.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Martin Silva mentioned “mixed marks” in the civil law countries, “text marks that are represented in an specific figurative way (form+color) and are only protected in those designs.” Do you have any particular countries in mind? That sounds like an important concept for this discussion.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> John McElwaine said: “Many countries apparently require ‘a depiction’<br>
> of the mark with no distinction between text, stylization or included designs.” Do you have specific countries in mind? I think that could offer useful information to figure out what distinctions are or aren’t available.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Sorry if I missed others, especially in the audio portion—the transcript isn’t up yet.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Michael R Graham asked me in the chat: Please provide cases supporting "weaker" protection statement for stylized word registered marks.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> As I said on the call, there’s a distinction between protection and infringement. Koke infringes Coke for soft drinks, but Koke isn’t a “protected” mark of Coca-Cola’s. Unless the TMCH is supposed to expand coverage of marks beyond what’s registered or validated by a court, the fact that a stylized mark might (or might not) be infringed by a use that doesn’t have the same stylization isn’t relevant. I agree with Greg Shatan that “strength” of the mark isn’t relevant to what goes into the TMCH, but precisely because that’s true we should be particularly careful to ensure that marks that are only valid because of elements that can’t go into the TMCH—that is, stylization or design elements—can’t have their textual portions in the TMCH.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> For US jurisprudence on the limited scope of stylized marks v.<br>
> standard character marks:<br>
><br>
> Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 95 F.Supp.3d 350, (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (dealing with special form mark whose words were unprotectable absent stylization), aff’d, Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 659 Fed.Appx. 55 (2d.<br>
> Cir. 2016); Time, Inc. v. Petersen Pub. Co., LLC, 173 F.3d 113, 118-19 (“[T]he law of trademark accords stronger protection to the stylized version of certain words used as trademarks than to those words themselves ….[T]rademark rights in the stylized appearance of a word are distinct from trademark rights in the word itself”) (2d Cir.1999); Gruner + Jahr USA Publ'g Div. of Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publ'g Co.<br>
> v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d 1072, 1077–78 (2d Cir. 1993) (observing, for purposes of a likelihood of confusion analysis, that “the district court ... properly distinguished between the strength of the [composite] trademark PARENTS [consisting of those words rendered in a particular visual style] and the weak, descriptive nature of what it called the ‘mere word ‘parents,’ ' ”); King of the Mountain Sports, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F.3d 1084, 1090–91 (10th Cir.1999) (holding that two differently stylized marks using the same two words were not similar); Neopost Industrie B.V. v. PFE Intern., Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 669 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (registration of stylized mark didn’t extend protection to nonstylized uses); Federation Internationale De Football Ass'n v. Nike, Inc., 285 F.Supp.2d 64, 72-73 (D.D.C. 2003) (“[E]ven after a descriptive term has become distinct, its power to preclude other uses of closely related descriptive terms is diminished where the senior owner has used its mark only in a particular, stylized way. For even if that overall stylized mark is strong, the trademark value of the words themselves may be quite weak.”); see also In re K-T Zoe Furniture, Inc., 16 F.3d 390 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (stylized form was registrable, but words alone were descriptive and unregistrable); Igloo Products Corp. v. Brantex, Inc., 202 F.3d 814 (5th Cir. 2000) (registration of composite mark didn’t provide presumption of validity for words alone); In re Box Solutions Corp.,<br>
> 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1953 (TTAB 2006) (finding no likelihood of confusion between two stylized marks despite identical goods and overlap in words BOX and BOX SOLUTIONS).<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Rebecca Tushnet<br>
> Georgetown Law<br>
> 703 593 6759<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
> Confidentiality Notice<br>
><br>
> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.<br>
><br>
> If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>