<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Brian, The US Trademark Office drew a bright line and so did
we. Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/26/2017 4:00 AM, Beckham, Brian
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:fbb0e6671fc44668b5075c8a62a7a7ea@WICM02.WIECSP.UNICC.ORG"
type="cite">
<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";
color:black;}
p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Header Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Footer Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
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","serif";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.HeaderChar
{mso-style-name:"Header Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:Header;}
span.FooterChar
{mso-style-name:"Footer Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:Footer;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.rtecenter, li.rtecenter, div.rtecenter
{mso-style-name:rtecenter;
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","serif";
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.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;}
--></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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext">Kathy,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext">It’s
not clear that the reference to “only marks registered as
text” is necessarily incompatible with the “T. MARKEY”
examples provided. The second, stylized version shows a
“mark registered as text”. It simply happens to be text in
a stylized (non-standard) form.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext">In
other words, a mark “registered as text” may not necessarily
be exclusively the same as (in USPTO parlance) “a standard
character mark”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext">It
may therefore not be entirely accurate to suggest that if
the TMCH allowed the second “T. MARKEY” example in stylized
form (again, arguably a mark “registered as text”) versus
the standard character version, it would somehow be
“expand[ing] existing trademark rights”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext">Brian<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:12 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> icannlists; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for
Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate
Balance)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Hi
Paul, <br>
Apologies. I saw your thanks, but not your notes farther
down. (For those of us skimming hundreds of emails, feel
free to use use red/green/stars/asterisks to designate
comments...) I caught it on a re-read...
</span><br>
<br>
Quick note that the purpose of this recommendation is to share
what is clearly before the Working Group: that rules created
for the Trademark Clearinghouse process are not being
followed. The goal is not to delve into motive or intent, but
rather compliance and review. The actions of our TMCH database
provider, as an ICANN contractor, must follow and comply with
the rules as set out by the ICANN Community.
<br>
<br>
If we want to change the rules, that's fine; we can do it by
consensus. But until that happens, the rules adopted
unanimously by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board are the
policy. It's not for third parties to make their own or follow
a different set.
<br>
<br>
Paul, I'll respond to what I think are your questions below.
My answers are preceded by =><br>
Best, Kathy<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
On 4/19/2017 8:23 PM, icannlists wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hi
Kathy,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thank
you so much for being willing to put forward a proposal.
I know this is hard work (having put forward one on the
GIs myself this week!) so it is appreciated.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
am getting my initial thoughts on this out to the list on
this as quickly as possible in the hopes that your
proposal can be reworked a bit prior to our next WG call.
A few thoughts:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">1.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%">
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">We
have learned that Deloitte is accepting the words of
design marks, composite marks, figurative marks, stylized
marks, mixed marks, and any similar combination of
characters and design (collectively “design marks”).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">We
spent the better half of our last call untangling these
definitions and to see them lumped in together again when
these are not the same things makes the proposal
impossible to read for we trademark folks. It would be
great if we could include the clarity we achieved last
week.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">==> The category is meant to be
comprehensive and international.
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">2.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%">
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">However,
the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board
expressly bar the acceptance of design marks into the TMCH
Database. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">This
is just inaccurate as written, mostly, but not entirely, by
the way you have defined the terms. For example, I know of
no GNSO Council prohibition that would reject a mark just
because it is in a cursive font instead of plain block
font. Can you either fix this or send us to a link
supporting the claim? Perhaps if you unpack your collective
definition, resulting a more precise claim and provide the
link, that might give us something to talk about. As
written now, I’ve just come to a halt on it because it
doesn’t reflect the facts on the ground.<br>
<br>
==> Paul, what I wrote is nearly a direct quote. Please
see the "Expanded Discussion" discussion which follows in my
recommendation directly below the opening section and
explains exactly where this sentence comes from and what it
references. I'm happy to paste some of this discussion here
too. The STI Final Report (adopted by GNSO Council and ICANN
Board) stated:
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.25pt;line-height:135%"><b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The TC
Database should be required to include nationally or
multinationally registered “text mark” trademarks, from all
jurisdictions, (including countries where there is no
substantive review).<b> (The trademarks to be included in
the TC are text marks because “design marks” provide
protection for letters and words only within the context
of their design or logo and the STI was under a mandate
not to expand existing trademark rights.)
</b>Emphasis added. <i>Section 4.1, National or
Multinational Registered Marks, </i>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf</span></a><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.65pt;line-height:135%"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.65pt;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">==>
The words mean exactly what they say - only marks registered
as text can be registered into the Trademark Clearinghouse;
nothing that "provide[s] protection for letters and words
only within the content of their design or logo." It states
why: "the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing
trademark rights." The issue was the balancing of underlying
concept adopted here as part of the rights of trademark
owners and the rights of current and future registrants.
Domain names are text based.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><br>
==> We certainly meant to differentiate a trademark in a
"cursive font instead of a plain text font." That's the
whole purpose for Section 4.1's text, and the unusual extra
step of including the explanation right next to it. Those of
us who worked on this section (including myself and Dr.
Konstantinos Komaitis, whose PhD became the book <i>The
Current State of Domain Name Regulation: Domain Names as
Second Class Citizens in a Mark-Dominated World)
</i>spent a lot of time on this issue. In evaluating it, the
STI Final Report followed the guidance of experts such as
those at the US Trademark Office regarding the different
representation of marks:
<br>
</span><br>
[USPTO <b>Representation of Mark</b>] "During the
application process for a standard character mark, the USPTO
will depict the mark in a simple standardized typeface
format. However, it is important to remember that this
depiction does not limit or control the format in which you
actually "use" the mark. In other words, the rights
associated with a mark in standard characters reside in the
wording (or other literal element, e.g., letters, numerals,
punctuation) and
<strong>not</strong> in any particular display. Therefore,
registration of a standard character mark would entitle you to
use and protect the mark in any font style, size, or color.
It is for this reason that a standard character mark can be
an attractive option for many companies."<br>
<br>
"The stylized/design format, on the other hand, is appropriate
if you wish to register word(s) by themselves or combined to
form a phrase of any length and/or letter(s) having a
particular stylized appearance, a mark consisting of a design
element, or a combination of stylized wording and a design.
Once filed, any design element will be assigned a “design
code,” as set forth in the
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/dscm/index.htm">Design
Search Code Manual</a>."<br>
<br>
"Here is an example of a standard character mark: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="rtecenter"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part3.D7B30141.6C7BB18A@kathykleiman.com"
alt="Standard mark example" height="140" border="0"
width="280">"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">"Here
are some examples of special form marks:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><img id="_x0000_i1026"
src="cid:part4.008EDDD3.CFD84000@kathykleiman.com"
alt="Stylized mark example" height="140" border="0"
width="280"> <img id="_x0000_i1027"
src="cid:part5.60FDDFC7.BA1B8277@kathykleiman.com"
alt="Design mark example" height="140" border="0"
width="280">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <img
id="_x0000_i1028"
src="cid:part6.288C1D12.7C226A84@kathykleiman.com"
alt="Design mark example" height="140" border="0"
width="280">"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Quotes above from <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/representation-mark">https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/representation-mark</a><br>
<br>
The rest of the recommendation follows from these finding.
Again, this not a matter of a good job or a bad job -- no
value judgement is intended. Rather it is a compliance and
review issue. Are the rules followed? The answer is no.<br>
<br>
Best, Kathy<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">3.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%">
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Accordingly,
Deloitte is currently in breach of the rules that ICANN
adopted and must revise its practice to follow the ruls
adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board for TMCH
operation.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">In
order to buy this conclusion, the premises have to be
correct, but the premises (as mentioned in 1 and 2) are not
close to ready. I have to suspend consideration of the
conclusion contained in this paragraph due to the faulty
syllogism we have in front of us. Maybe if you make the
edits in 1 and 2 suggested, we can then examine whether or
not your paragraph 3 conclusion is correct, partially
correct, or incorrect.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">4.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%">
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Alternatively,
the Working Group by Consensus may CHANGE the rules and
present the GNSO Council and ICANN Board with an expanded
set of rules that Deloitte, or any future TMCH Provider,
must follow.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">I
guess I don’t understand this. Are you saying that if
Deloitte is not in breach by letting in marks written in
cursive fonts, then the WG can by Consensus propose
changes? I’m not sure that the two things are connected.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid black
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 2.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">5.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%">
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">In
all events, we have a BREACH SITUATION which must be
remedied. Further details, information and explanation
below.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid black
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 2.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Same
response as #3 above. Also, this really confused
paragraph 4 for me further. It seemed like paragraph 4
indicated that if paragraph 3 were not accurate, consensus
driven solutions would be possible (again not sure those
two things are connected) but then you go on to say in 5
that conclusions in 3 are a foregone conclusion (thus
obviating any perceivable need for paragraph 4).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
I’m sure other thoughts will come to me as we dig in to
either this version or an amended version, but these were
the issues that jumped out at me right away. If you could
respond to the full list on this as soon as practical, I
would appreciate it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
Paul<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for
Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate
Balance)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Hi All, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>As promised, I am resubmitting a new version of my earlier
recommendation. It now addresses issues from Question #7
(Design Marks) and #16 (Appropriate Balance). I submit this
recommendation to the Working Group in my capacity as a member
and not as a co-chair.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Text below and also attached as a PDF.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best, Kathy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>------------------------------------------------------</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.25pt;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:35.25pt;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Design
Mark Recommendation for Working Group - for Question #7
and Question #16 of TMCH Charter Questions (#7,
<i>How are design marks currently handled by the TMCH
provider?; </i>and #16, <i>
Does the scope of the TMCH and the protections
mechanisms which flow from it reflect the appropriate
balance between the rights of trademark holders and the
rights of non-trademark registrants?)</i></span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">We (the
RPM Working Group) have found a problem:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:.25in;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">1.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%">
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">We
have learned that Deloitte is accepting the words of design
marks, composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks,
mixed marks, and any similar combination of characters and
design (collectively “design marks”).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">2.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%">
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">However,
the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board
expressly bar the acceptance of design marks into the TMCH
Database. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">3.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%">
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Accordingly,
Deloitte is currently in breach of the rules that ICANN
adopted and must revise its practice to follow the rules
adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board for TMCH
operation.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">4.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%">
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Alternatively,
the Working Group by Consensus may CHANGE the rules and
present the GNSO Council and ICANN Board with an expanded
set of rules that Deloitte, or any future TMCH Provider,
must follow.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid black
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 2.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">5.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%">
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">In
all events, we have a BREACH SITUATION which must be
remedied. Further details, information and explanation
below.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;line-height:135%"
align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;line-height:135%"
align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Expanded
Discussion</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;line-height:135%"
align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:135%"><i><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">A.
Expressly Outside the TMCH Rules Adopted by the GNSO
Council & ICANN Board</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The GNSO
Council & ICANN Board-adopted rules (based on the STI
Final Report and IRT Recommendations) that were very clear
about the type of mark to be accepted by the Trademark
Clearinghouse: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.25pt;line-height:135%"><b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“4.1
National or Multinational Registered Marks The TC Database
should be required to include nationally or
multinationally registered “text mark” trademarks, from
all jurisdictions, (including countries where there is no
substantive review).”</span></b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf</span></a><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.65pt;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Further,
the adopted rules themselves are very clear about the Harm
of putting design marks into the TMCH Database:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.25pt;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“[Also
4.1] (The trademarks to be included in the TC are text
marks because “design marks” provide protection for
letters and words only within the context of their design
or logo and the STI was under a mandate not to expand
existing trademark rights.)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The
Applicant Guidebook adopted the same requirements, as it
must and should, namely:
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.45pt;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“3.2:Standards
for inclusion in the Clearinghouse
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.25pt;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
3.2.1<span style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%"> </span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Nationally
or regionally registered word marks from all jurisdictions”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><i><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Nonetheless,
and in violation of the express rules adopted by the GNSO
Council and ICANN Board and placed into the Applicant
Guidebook, TMCH Provider Deloitte is accepting into the
TMCH database words and letters it has extracted from
composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks,
composite marks and mixed marks. Deloitte is removing
words and letters from designs, patterns, special
lettering and other patterns, styles, colors, and logos
which were integral to the trademark as accepted by the
national or regional trademark office.</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><i><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">B. Harm
from the Current Form</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The harm
from this acceptance is that it violates the rules under
which Deloitte is allowed to operate. It creates a situation
in which Deloitte is operating under its own authority, not
that of ICANN and the ICANN Community. Such action, in
violation of rules clearly adopted by the GNSO Council and
ICANN Board and written into the New gTLD Applicant
Guidebook, gives too much power to Deloitte -- a contractor
of ICANN, to make its own rules and adopt its own protocol
without regard to the scope, breadth and reach of the
governing rules.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">It is the
type of misconduct anticipated by the GNSO Council and ICANN
Board, and why the rules demand that ICANN hold a close
relationship with the TMCH Provider <i>by contract</i> to
allow close oversight and correction of misinterpretation or
failure to follow the rules. (See, 3.1 in
<i>Relationship with ICANN</i>, Special Trademark Issues
Review Team Recommendations).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><i><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">C.
Presumption of Trademark Validity Does Not Extend to
Non-Stylized Version of the Registration Marks</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Further,
words and letters within a composite marks, figurative
marks, stylized marks, and mixed marks are protected within
the scope of the designs, logos, lettering, patterns,
colors, etc. That's not a Working Group opinion, that's a
legal opinion echoed through case law and UDRP decisions.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">In WIPO
UDRP Decision
<i>Marco Rafael Sanfilippo v. Estudio Indigo</i>, Case No.
D2012-1064, the Panel found:
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.8pt;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“Complainant
has shown that it owns two trademark registrations in
Argentina. The Panel notes that both registrations are for
“mixed” marks, where each consists of a composition made of
words and graphic elements, such as stylized fonts, a roof
of a house, etc. See details of the registrations with
drawings at section 4 above.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.8pt;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.8pt;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“As
explained on the INPI website, “[m] ixed (marks) are those
constituted by the combination of word elements and
figurative elements together, or of word elements in
stylized manner.” Accordingly, the protection granted by the
registration of a mixed mark is for the composition as a
whole, and not for any of its constituting elements in
particular. Thus, Complainant is not correct when he asserts
that it has trademark rights in the term “cabañas” (standing
alone), based on these mixed trademark registrations.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Similarly,
in the US, federal courts have found that
<b>the presumption of trademark validity provided by
registration does not extend to the non-stylized versions
of the registration marks</b>. See e.g., </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:34.75pt;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<i><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Neopost
Industrie B.V. v. PFE Intern</span></i><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">.,
Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 669 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (registration of
stylized mark didn’t extend protection to nonstylized uses);
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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:34.75pt;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Cir.
2016).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><i><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">D. Beyond
the Scope of the TMCH Protection that the GNSO Council and
ICANN Board Agreed to Provide Trademark Owners.
</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">As has
been pointed out in our Working Group calls, the STI
evaluations and IRT evaluations were long and hard and both
groups decided in their recommendations to protect only the
word mark – the text itself when the text was registered by
itself. Neither allowed for the extraction of a word or
letters from amidst a pattern, style, composite or mixed
marks; neither created a process for doing so; neither
accorded the discretion to the TMCH Provider (now Deloitte)
to adopt any processes to handle this process independently.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The STI
clearly elaborated its reasoning: that extracting a word or
letters from a larger design, gives too many rights to one
trademark owner over others using the same words or letters.
As clearly elaborated in the STI Recommendations and adopted
by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board (unanimously), it would
be an unfair advantage for one trademark owner over others
using the same words or letters. Specifically: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:34.5pt;text-align:justify;line-height:135%">
<b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“(The
trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because
“design marks” provide protection for letters and words
only within the context of their design or logo and the
STI was under a mandate not to expand existing trademark
rights.)” </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">To the
extent that Deloitte as a TMCH Provider is operating within
its mandate, and the limits of the rules and contract
imposed on it,
<i>it may not take steps to expand existing trademark rights</i>.
The rights, as granted by national and regional trademark
offices are rights that expressly include the patterns,
special lettering and other styles, colors, and logos that
are a part of the trademark granted by the Trademark Office
and certification provided by each Trademark Office and
presented to the Trademark Clearinghouse.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:135%">II.<span
style="font-size:7.0pt;line-height:135%"> </span><b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Breach
and Correction</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Accordingly,
Deloitte is in breach of the rules that ICANN adopted and
must revise its practice to go to follow the rules adopted
by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board. Deloitte’s extraction
of words and letters from patterns, special lettering,
styles, colors and logos, as outlined above, violates the
rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board for the
Trademark Clearinghouse operation.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Bringing
Deloitte’s operation of the TMCH – and its terms and
requirements - rules does not require a consensus of the
Working Group. Rather, it is a fundamental aspect of our job
as a Working Group, as laid out by the GNSO Council in our
charter, to review the operation of the Trademark
Clearinghouse in compliance with its rules. As Deloitte is
not operating in compliance with its rules in this area, it
is in breach and must come into compliance. The excellent
work of the Working Group in this area, and finding this
problem through hard work and research, should be sufficient
for ICANN Staff to act in enforcement of its contract and
our rules. Point it out clearly and directly to Deloitte, to
ICANN Board and Staff, and to the ICANN Community is one
small additional step the Working Group might take. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:135%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Alternatively,
the Working Group
<b>by consensus</b> may CHANGE the rules and present to the
GNSO Council and ICANN Board a new set of standards by which
Deloitte (or any future TMCH provider) may use to accept the
design and stylized marks currently barred by the rules. But
such a step would require a <b>change</b> to the ICANN
rules under which the Trademark Clearinghouse operate, and
then acceptance by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board. ICANN
contractors do not have the unilateral power to make their
own rules or to change the rule that are given them. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">The
contents of this message may be privileged and confidential.
If this message has been received in error, please delete it
without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not
intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not
disseminate this message without the permission of the
author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not
intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any
other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws
and regulations. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">
<span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:"Arial
Black",sans-serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black">World IP Day 2017 – Join the conversation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">
<span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:"Arial
Black",sans-serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black">Web:
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial
Black",sans-serif;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:blue"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.wipo.int/ipday">www.wipo.int/ipday</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
"Arial
Black",sans-serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:black">Facebook:
</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial
Black",sans-serif;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:blue"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/worldipday">www.facebook.com/worldipday</a></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial Black",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p> </p>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">World
Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This
electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and
copyright protected information. If you have received this
e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and
delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure
all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to
opening or using.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>