<html 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="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New";
panose-1:2 7 3 9 2 2 5 2 4 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:589982;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1824637422 67698691 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">To facilitate the Working Group’s deliberation of this proposal (to expand the TMCH matching rules for Claims Notices), staff offers the following notes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">The “identical match” test was proposed in the first IRT Report (April 2009) and retained throughout the development of the Applicant Guidebook<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">In the various public comment periods for the AGB and, most recently, for the RPM Staff Paper (February 2015) and the Issue Report for this PDP (October 2015), numerous comments
were received supporting expansion of the matching rules to include plurals, mark+keyword, “mark contained”, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">The GAC, in requesting an independent review of the TMCH in 2011, had specifically raised the question of matching rules for consideration<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span style="mso-list:Ignore">o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">The recent (February 2017) revised report from the Analysis Group reviewing the TMCH found that it was not able to find clear evidence – based on the data available to it and
the analysis it performed – that the benefits outweighed the costs of expansion. They did, however, note that if trademark owners value registrations that are variants of their marks but are unable to monitor these registrations, expansion may be useful.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">In discussing the proposal for TMCH Question 10, will it be helpful to review the Analysis Group data and findings, and to consider what, if any, are the increased needs or new or additional
concerns over the past few years that may support expansion, or the contrary?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Cheers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Mary<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black"><gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 16:45<br>
<b>To: </b>Paul Keating <paul@law.es>, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Question#10 (Appropriate Strings for Notification)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clearly, we have people who are interested in defending the proposal. Paul McGrady has done so on this thread. I'm certain the proposer is "interested," as well. We've also had some responses that are interested in variations on the
proposal, but still going beyond exact match. We've had almost nobody "interested" in disagreeing with the proposal. The upcoming meetings of the WG will be used to open up the discussion of the various proposals, including this one. I believe that was
the game plan all along. So at best, it's both incorrect and premature to attempt to call consensus in one direction or the other. At worst, it seems like an attempt to drown the proposal in the bathtub while nobody's watching. The general approach in ICANN
WGs is to give any proposal a full and fair hearing and opportunity for discussion, across at least a couple of meetings. Summary execution is not consistent with that approach. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you were "shaking the
tree" rather than intended to cut off discussion before it even started. It seem that has been the effect. If that was your intent, thank you for focusing us.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would support an expansion beyond exact match for matching rules. I would suggest modifying the proposal to have more defined methods of matching. For example, typos of the mark and mark+keywords. Keywords could be derived from the
trademark registration description or from either registrant-defined or pre-defined lists of keywords, based on the goods and services. Typos could simply be determined in a fashion, either by the registrant or by some formula or process. Domain hacks should
also be considered (e.g., the trademark SALAD NINJA would be a match with salad.ninja, as well as saladninja.ninja. This would not require that variations be registered in the TMCH.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is consistent with the type of harms seen in the marketplace. While early UDRPs largely dealt with "exact match", the trend for quite some time has been toward typosquats and mark+keyword violations. The first wave of UDRPs has seen
more exact matches, but we can expect history to repeat itself. The TMCH should keep pace.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greg<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:32 PM Rebecca Tushnet <<a href="mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu" target="_blank">Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">That's because it came from words that weren't mine.<br>
<br>
If no one at all is interested in defending the "expanding the match"<br>
proposal that this thread is supposed to cover, does that mean that we<br>
have a consensus that it's not worth pursuing? I'm not sure what the<br>
procedure for determining that would be.<br>
Rebecca Tushnet<br>
Georgetown Law<br>
703 593 6759<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Paul Keating <<a href="mailto:paul@law.es" target="_blank">paul@law.es</a>> wrote:<br>
> I'm sorry but these 2 statements seem to be in conflict with each other.....<br>
><br>
> I don't in fact think that the TMCH contains names of those individuals who've been wrongly deterred from registering domain names they had a right to register.<br>
><br>
> As has been discussed for a while, I think it contains other relevant evidence, like more words like "cloud" and "hotel" that prima facie don't seem likely to justify preemptive rights across new gTLDs.<br>
><br>
> I am more concerned about the latter but must say I really don't understand what is meant by the former.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Sent from my iPad<br>
><br>
>> On 25 Apr 2017, at 16:22, Scott Austin <<a href="mailto:SAustin@vlplawgroup.com" target="_blank">SAustin@vlplawgroup.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I don't in fact think that the<br>
>> TMCH contains names of those individuals who've been wrongly deterred<br>
>> from registering domain names they had a right to register. As has<br>
>> been discussed for a while, I think it contains other relevant<br>
>> evidence, like more words like "cloud" and "hotel" that prima facie<br>
>> don't seem likely to justify preemptive rights across new gTLDs.<br>
_______________________________________________<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/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#002E62">Greg Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan<br>
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428<br>
</span><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#1155CC">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>