<div dir="ltr">As with Trademarks, another good reason why all TMCH marks should be subject to proof of use not just those opting in to Sunrise.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Phil Corwin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" target="_blank">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_-4643003788498167741WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">In regard to this:<u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> The registration of trademarks simply evidences the existence of marks of the underlying goods and services. 6ter evidences Governmental & IGO
marks in a similar way.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">While I’m not sure how Deloitte handles TMCH applications submitted by IGOs for their names or acronyms, I note (in my capacity as Co-Chair of the WG on CRP
for IGOs) that numerous parties, including the IPC, recently submitted comments to the effect that notification to WIPO of 6ter rights did not establish anything equivalent to a trademark, and at best might constitute evidence of common law TM rights. In addition
the US government asserted that some IGOs that have submitted 6ter notification are not authentic IGOs, and referred our WG to the IGO list compiled by the GAC as being definitive.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">So if IGOs are being granted the ability to register names or acronyms ion the TMCH based merely upon 6ter notification that would appear to be a problem based
upon the feedback the CRP WG has received.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><a href="tel:(202)%20559-8597" value="+12025598597" target="_blank">202-559-8597</a>/Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><a href="tel:(202)%20559-8750" value="+12025598750" target="_blank">202-559-8750</a>/Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><a href="tel:(202)%20255-6172" value="+12022556172" target="_blank">202-255-6172</a>/Cell</span></b><b><span style="color:navy"><u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><u></u> <u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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""> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Tattersfield<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 20, 2017 5:31 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation II for Question #8<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Sorry Kathy, but I believe your thinking on this is fundamentally flawed. There is nothing in STI Principle
1.1 that requires the ‘registration’ of a trademark or service mark. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">The registration of trademarks simply evidences the existence of marks of the underlying goods and services.
6ter evidences Governmental & IGO marks in a similar way.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">In order to have their mark infringed a Government or IGO has to offer a service i.e. be known by that
mark, this is sufficient under TMCH.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">There is therefore no need to change the existing rules and I beleive this proposal should be withdrawn.<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">All,<br>
Question #8 has been very much before us in discussions online, questions to Deloitte, and at meetings. I greatly respect Paul McGrady's early submission, and of course, support it. But I think that the requirements of this process require a little more foundation
and discussion of harm, and I see a slightly different scope of concern. Accordingly, this longer discussion is set out below (and attached as a PDF). This is a separate recommendation from that of Paul's, hence its title "Recommendation II for Question #8."
<br>
<br>
As before, I submit this recommendation in my capacity as a member of the Working Group, and not as a co-chair.
<br>
<br>
Tx you for your review, <br>
Kathy<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>--------------<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Recommendation for Question #8: Marks Protected by Statue or Treaty</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">It is with considerable interest that the RPM WG has evaluated the question of Deloitte accepting into the TMCH database
marks protected by statute or treaty. In our investigation we have found:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">The wording that creates this subcategory of protected marks does not come from the recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council or ICANN Board;
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Everyone who sees these rules interprets them differently:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in">o<span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Some think it is solely to protect those marks expressly set out in treaty, e.g., “Olympics”</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in">o<span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Others think it is to protect categories of organizations, such as International Governmental Organizations; and
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in">o<span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Still others think it is to protect such as geographical indications.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Deloitte will not explain how they interpret this section or what they are accepted into the TMCH database.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">4.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Acceptance of “marks protected by statute or treaty” appears to be a direct violation of the original intent and instructions of the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="m_-4643003788498167741m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Specifically, Item 1.1 of the TMCH rules adopted by the Council and Board provides for only acceptance of trademarks:
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">“The name of the rights protection mechanism should be the ‘Trademark Clearinghouse’ to signify that only trademarks are to be included in the database.”
</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Section 1. Name; 1.1 Trademark Clearinghouse;
</span><cite><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-style:normal"><a href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://gnso.icann.org/en/<wbr>issues/sti/sti-wt-<wbr>recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf</a></span></cite><cite><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
</span></cite><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Second, by these adopted rules,
<u>anything that is not a trademark cannot be entered into the main TMCH Database, but may be segregated into another “ancillary database”: </u></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">“The TC Service Provider should be required to maintain a separate TC database, and may not store any data in the TC database related to its provision of ancillary services, if any.”
</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Section 2, Functionality of the Trademark Clearinghouse, 2.3 Segregation of the Trademark Clearinghouse Database.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Finally, the limitations above were passed by “Unanimous consent” of all Stakeholder Groups in the STI, and then adopted unanimously by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<b><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Accordingly, the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board are very clear: the Trademark Clearinghouse is for Trademarks.</span></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Origin of Problem:
</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">The Applicant Guidebook appears to be the source of this odd expansion of subcategories for “marks” being accepted into
the Trademark Clearinghouse database. In the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, <i>
Trademark Clearinghouse Section,</i> we find: </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Section 3, <i>Criteria for Trademark Inclusion in Clearinghouse</i>:</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">“3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are:
</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> 3.2.1 [Skipped]</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> 3.2.2 [Skipped]</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">3.2.3 Any word mark protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion.</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">3.2.4 Other marks that constitute intellectual property.”</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb" target="_blank">https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/<wbr>applicants/agb</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">It is not clear that 3.2.3 is only for trademarks (and clearly Deloitte does not interpret it so) or what 3.2.4 means
or includes. In all events, neither of two subcategories were discussed or approved by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Further, under the express rules adopted, any results of 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 that are not trademarks would have to be entered
into a <b>different database, not the main Trademark Clearinghouse database used for Community-Approved RPMs</b> (per STI Recommendations, Section 2, Functionality of the Trademark Clearinghouse, 2.3 Segregation of the Trademark Clearinghouse Database above).
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Overall, we know that at least 75 terms have been approved by Deloitte under 3.2.3 without regard to their trademark
status and are currently in the TMCH Database. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Harm:</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">The TMCH Database is growing beyond the rules established and set by the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Community.
This deeply harms the Multistakeholder Process. As discussed extensively on the RPM PDP WG list, the original GNSO committees worked long and hard and carefully balanced the rights of those seeking trademark protection and those seeking to register domain
names in New gTLDs. Allowing into the Trademark Clearinghouse new types of entries is a decision for this Working Group, but not for Deloitte or ICANN Staff.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Second, these subsections allow a level of interpretation and discretion never intended for the Trademark Clearinghouse
Provider. Through Section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, Deloitte is engaged in a new function of discretion, interpretation and choice – one without rules, guidance and oversight by ICANN and ICANN Community. Ultimately, we don’t even understand what is being accepted
(and Deloitte would not tell us).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Third, these subsections (3.2.2 and 3.2.4) harm all of those seeking to register domain names, in good faith for their
new groups, companies, goods, services, hobbies, speech, research and education. Absent a trademark right of precedence, all other domain names should be open and available to the world to register. That was the promise of the New gTLD Program.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Action:
</span></i><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The WG has an oversight obligation to ensure the rules adopted by the Community are followed. We can ensure that subcategories 3.2.3
and 3.2.4 are allowed <b>only to the extent they are registered trademarks</b>. Alternatively, the Working Group
<b>by consensus</b> may CHANGE the rules and present to the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board a new set of standards by which Deloitte (or any future TMCH provider) may review and accept these subcategories of marks.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:#a0a0a0" align="center" noshade size="1" width="100%">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14347 - Release Date: 04/19/17<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>