<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Sorry, meant to send this to the entire list.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></p><div><p style="text-indent:0in">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote">From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Greg Shatan</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03 PM<br>Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)<br>To: Rebecca Tushnet <<a href="mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu">Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu</a>><br><br><br><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Your guess -- and overdeterrence is just a guess, with nothing to back it up -- is as good as mine. My guess is that it absolutely is not overdeterrence.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">And my point was that your statement was a mischaracterization of the way the TMCH, Sunrise and Claims work, as well as a mischaracterization of how trademarks work. So I don't think "My point exactly" is what you meant to say (though I wish it were).</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span class=""><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_-2992842235045336712gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></p><div><p style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a name="m_-2992842235045336712_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter__GoBack"></a></span><b style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#002e62">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">C: <a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428" value="+19178166428" target="_blank">917-816-6428</a><br>
S: gsshatan<br>Phone-to-Skype: </span><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.3333px"><a href="tel:(646)%20845-9428" value="+16468459428" target="_blank">646-845-9428</a><br></span></font><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-indent:0in" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></p><p style="font-size:12.8px;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br></span><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Rebecca Tushnet <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu" target="_blank">Rebecca.Tushnet@law.<wbr>georgetown.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">My point exactly. So what explains the over 90% abandonment rate,<br>
other than overdeterrence, especially with those most returned terms?<br>
<span class="m_-2992842235045336712im m_-2992842235045336712HOEnZb">Rebecca Tushnet<br>
Georgetown Law<br>
<a href="tel:703%20593%206759" value="+17035936759" target="_blank">703 593 6759</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><div class="m_-2992842235045336712HOEnZb"><div class="m_-2992842235045336712h5">On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> "Maybe absolutely no one else besides the TMCH entrant/s had a legitimate<br>
> business using those terms."<br>
><br>
> That is clearly and absolutely not the basis of trademark rights, trademark<br>
> registration or entry into the TMCH. Nor is it the way Sunrise or Claims<br>
> work. Ridiculous.<br>
><br>
> Greg<br>
><br>
> Greg Shatan<br>
> C: <a href="tel:917-816-6428" value="+19178166428" target="_blank">917-816-6428</a><br>
> S: gsshatan<br>
> Phone-to-Skype: <a href="tel:646-845-9428" value="+16468459428" target="_blank">646-845-9428</a><br>
> <a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Rebecca Tushnet<br>
> <<a href="mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu" target="_blank">Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetow<wbr>n.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Yes, because we don't have good survey evidence, one of the questions<br>
>> is what we can infer from the circumstantial evidence available to us,<br>
>> particularly the over 90% abandonment rate combined with the top<br>
>> queries being words like forex, cloud, and love. Maybe absolutely no<br>
>> one else besides the TMCH entrant/s had a legitimate business using<br>
>> those terms. But I doubt it.<br>
>> Rebecca Tushnet<br>
>> Georgetown Law<br>
>> <a href="tel:703%20593%206759" value="+17035936759" target="_blank">703 593 6759</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:37 PM, icannlists <<a href="mailto:icannlists@winston.com" target="_blank">icannlists@winston.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> > Thanks Rebecca. I've never heard of a trademark owner being deterred by<br>
>> > a claims notice since one of the explicit defenses in the UDRP is when a<br>
>> > registrant has rights or legitimate interests in a corresponding trademark.<br>
>> > So, I think that one may be a bit of a red herring.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > However, your comment about avoiding overreach is well received and we<br>
>> > should keep it in mind while at the same time not under-reaching either -<br>
>> > when we do that, Grandma gets phished.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Best,<br>
>> > Paul<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > -----Original Message-----<br>
>> > From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:<a href="mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu" target="_blank">Rebecca.Tushnet@law.ge<wbr>orgetown.edu</a>]<br>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:17 PM<br>
>> > To: icannlists <<a href="mailto:icannlists@winston.com" target="_blank">icannlists@winston.com</a>><br>
>> > Cc: Silver, Bradley <<a href="mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com" target="_blank">Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com</a><wbr>>;<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16<br>
>> > (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Avoiding overreaching is pro-trademark, as the public reaction to<br>
>> > SOPA/PIPA and patent trolls has shown with respect to copyright and patent.<br>
>> > There are also the interests of trademark owners who aren't participating in<br>
>> > this process but may want to register domain names that are perfectly<br>
>> > legitimate for their goods/services and jurisdictions. Some of them may<br>
>> > inevitably receive notices and be deterred, but there are steps we can take<br>
>> > to limit that problem.<br>
>> > Rebecca Tushnet<br>
>> > Georgetown Law<br>
>> > <a href="tel:703%20593%206759" value="+17035936759" target="_blank">703 593 6759</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:50 PM, icannlists <<a href="mailto:icannlists@winston.com" target="_blank">icannlists@winston.com</a>><br>
>> > wrote:<br>
>> >> Thanks Rebecca. I'm not characterizing you as anti-trademark; just<br>
>> >> your arguments and positions to date on this list. We would very much<br>
>> >> welcome anything favorable to trademarks that you wish to add to the<br>
>> >> discourse.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Best,<br>
>> >> Paul<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> >> From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:<a href="mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu" target="_blank">Rebecca.Tushnet@law.ge<wbr>orgetown.edu</a>]<br>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 8:00 PM<br>
>> >> To: icannlists <<a href="mailto:icannlists@winston.com" target="_blank">icannlists@winston.com</a>><br>
>> >> Cc: Silver, Bradley <<a href="mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com" target="_blank">Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com</a><wbr>>;<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16<br>
>> >> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Please don't characterize me as anti-trademark; I strongly believe in<br>
>> >> the consumer protection function of trademarks, and also in trademark<br>
>> >> protection in some circumstances for business purposes. See<br>
>> >> <a href="https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/01/registering-disagreement-registra" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://harvardlawreview.org/2<wbr>017/01/registering-disagreemen<wbr>t-registra</a><br>
>> >> tion-in-modern-american-tradem<wbr>ark-law/<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Asking again: for those of you who think it doesn't matter if claimants<br>
>> >> who don't own relevant rights get to use the TMCH, what then did ICANN mean<br>
>> >> by its stated intent not to expand trademark rights?<br>
>> >> Rebecca Tushnet<br>
>> >> Georgetown Law<br>
>> >> <a href="tel:703%20593%206759" value="+17035936759" target="_blank">703 593 6759</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:46 PM, icannlists <<a href="mailto:icannlists@winston.com" target="_blank">icannlists@winston.com</a>><br>
>> >> wrote:<br>
>> >>> Thanks Rebecca. There is not much new here. Whomever registers a<br>
>> >>> second level domain name first (Sunrise - TM owner), Premium (Rich person)<br>
>> >>> or Landrush (TM owner who didn't want to pay the Sunrise shakedown price or<br>
>> >>> regular folks like all of us), someone gets the exclusive rights to that<br>
>> >>> second level. So, it is not just a question of if, but of when and who. I<br>
>> >>> think it is OK to just say "I don't want it to be a trademark owner."<br>
>> >>> Others will disagree, but we don't have to keep this in a mysterious context<br>
>> >>> or otherwise try to layer on some free speech issue that doesn't exist.<br>
>> >>> Trademark owners want them first in order to protect their brands and<br>
>> >>> consumers. Others who are anti-trademarks don't want them to have them<br>
>> >>> first and would prefer someone else gets the exclusive right. Fair enough.<br>
>> >>> Now we see if we can get to consensus on changing the AGB. I doubt we will,<br>
>> >>> but at least the free speech veneer is pulled back.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Best,<br>
>> >>> Paul<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> >>> From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> >>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ic<wbr>ann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet<br>
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 3:11 PM<br>
>> >>> To: Silver, Bradley <<a href="mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com" target="_blank">Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com</a><wbr>><br>
>> >>> Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16<br>
>> >>> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> By that logic the mandate not to expand on trademark rights would<br>
>> >>> have been pointless because no activity in domain name space could<br>
>> >>> ever have expanded trademark rights. Call it a right, call it a<br>
>> >>> privilege, call it an alien from Xenon if you like, but ICANN did not<br>
>> >>> want trademark owners to be able to assert control over domain names<br>
>> >>> in excess of what underlying trademark law would have allowed. Under<br>
>> >>> the "nothing in domain names can expand trademark rights because<br>
>> >>> they're never exclusive" logic, was the ICANN direction completely<br>
>> >>> meaningless, or did it have some meaning? (Trademark rights, of<br>
>> >>> course, are never "exclusive" either, which is why we can use any<br>
>> >>> examples we want in this discussion.) Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law<br>
>> >>> <a href="tel:703%20593%206759" value="+17035936759" target="_blank">703 593 6759</a><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Silver, Bradley via gnso-rpm-wg<br>
>> >>> <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>> Jeremy - the TMCH does not allow exclusive rights in domains. Having<br>
>> >>>> a mark in the TMCH affords nothing close an exclusive right. That's a basic<br>
>> >>>> truth which shouldn’t be ignored.<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> >>>> From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> >>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ic<wbr>ann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm<br>
>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 1:32 PM<br>
>> >>>> To: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16<br>
>> >>>> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> On 26/4/17 9:00 am, Colin O'Brien wrote:<br>
>> >>>>> Nice try Rebecca but I'm not attempting to overturn the apple cart.<br>
>> >>>>> If you have actual examples of problems then provide them otherwise this is<br>
>> >>>>> an indulgent academic exercise.<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> The fact that the TMCH is allowing exclusive rights in domains that<br>
>> >>>> go beyond the equivalent rights in domestic trademark law is itself a<br>
>> >>>> problem if we accept that the TMCH was meant to track trademark law.<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> --<br>
>> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm<br>
>> >>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst<br>
>> >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
>> >>>> <a href="https://eff.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://eff.org</a><br>
>> >>>> <a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> Tel: <a href="tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161" value="+14154369333" target="_blank">415.436.9333 ext 161</a><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> Public key: <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/files/2016<wbr>/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt</a><br>
>> >>>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> ==============================<wbr>==============================<wbr>========<br>
>> >>>> =<br>
>> >>>> =<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that<br>
>> >>>> asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have<br>
>> >>>> any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its<br>
>> >>>> sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at <a href="tel:(212)%20484-6000" value="+12124846000" target="_blank">212.484.6000</a> or via<br>
>> >>>> email at <a href="mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com" target="_blank">ITServices@timewarner.com</a><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> ==============================<wbr>==============================<wbr>=====<br>
>> >>>> This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended<br>
>> >>>> only for the use of the<br>
>> >>>> addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If<br>
>> >>>> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the<br>
>> >>>> employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended<br>
>> >>>> recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination,<br>
>> >>>> distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this<br>
>> >>>> information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the<br>
>> >>>> information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended<br>
>> >>>> recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this<br>
>> >>>> message. If you have received this communication in error, please<br>
>> >>>> immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any<br>
>> >>>> copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you.<br>
>> >>>> ==============================<wbr>==============================<wbr>=====<br>
>> >>>><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> ______________________________<wbr>__<br>
>> >>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If<br>
>> >>> this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading<br>
>> >>> it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable<br>
>> >>> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of<br>
>> >>> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be<br>
>> >>> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties<br>
>> >>> under applicable tax laws and regulations.<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</div><br></div>