<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Comments in-line below on Kathy's second point.</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 class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="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">On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Kathy Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Re: the trademark side of the table:</p>
<p>Under Composite Mark definition, in the USA section, there are
two case quotes, but the rule itself is not present, and I would
ask that it be added: <b>"However, the fundamental rule in this
situation is that the marks must be considered in their
entireties." </b><a class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1207_01_c_ii.html" target="_blank">http://www.bitlaw.com/source/<wbr>tmep/1207_01_c_ii.html</a>,
USPTO Trademark of Examining Procedure. <br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">Further, as Mary notes under "stylized
mark," the Trademark Office confides that its definitions between
stylized marks and marks with design elements are distinctions
without difference: [from Mary's table]<font size="2"><font face="Calibri, serif"><b> </b></font></font><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size:11pt" size="2"><b>USA:
"No clear distinction, for definitional purposes at least,
between a mark comprising stylized text only and a mark
comprising stylized text with a design element." <br></b></font></font></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">GSS: The quoted text is not a statement from the Trademark Office, and it's certainly an instance of the Trademark Office "confiding" anything. What an interesting word choice! Confide is <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/confide">defined by the Oxford English Dictionary</a> as "tell someone about a secret or private matter while trusting them not to repeat it to others." So the reader of this sentence (i.e., the Working Group) is supposed to feel like we're being let in on a little secret by the USPTO -- and that secret is that the USPTO's "definitions of stylized marks and marks with design elements are distinctions without difference." A nice piece of advocacy writing here. Of course, this not a "confidence", it is not a statement by the USPTO, and there is nothing here that says or supports the argument (which is what this is) that the distinctions are "distinctions without differences." </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">In any event, I don't believe the chart's original statement is correct (and I certainly don't believe that the pretzel twisted out of the original statement is correct). The USPTO does in fact distinguish between marks with stylized fonts only and those containing design elements. I've provided examples to that effect on the list earlier; I don't have time to go back and find them now, but I can if need be. Even the chart acknowledges this in footnote 10 ("But see below for visual depictions of what the USPTO
considers a “stylized” mark as compared to a “design” mark.") </font><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">and the examples referred to in that footnote. </span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Interestingly, the USPTO's Basic Facts about Trademarks publication (</span><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BasicFacts.pdf">https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BasicFacts.pdf</a>) in the section on "Similarity of Marks" shows the "standard character" mark "T. MARKEY" and the "stylized form" mark "T. MARKEY" (shown on the ICANN chart) as an example of marks that are similar in appearance, with the following statement: "</font>The marks look very similar, even though the one on the right uses a stylized font." (<font face="verdana, sans-serif">Publication also attached as a PDF)</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size:11pt" size="2"><b>
</b></font></font></p>
<br>
<font size="2"><font face="Calibri, serif">The key difference, of
course, is the <b>"</b></font></font><b>registration of a
standard character mark would entitle you to use and protect the
mark in any font style, size, or color"</b> and the others don't.
I look forward to our discussion today and note again that it is
this clear distinction that original rules captured when they
created the TMCH Database, TM Claims and Sunrise period. <br><span class="gmail-">
<br>
Best, Kathy<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450moz-cite-prefix">On 5/2/2017 1:01 AM, Mary Wong wrote:<br>
</div>
</span><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail-h5">
<div class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Dear all,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Staff has
updated the table of open TMCH questions (on design marks,
GIs and TMCH matching rules) with the new proposal on GIs
submitted on Friday by Jonathan Agmon (see attached
document). Given the ongoing Working Group discussions on
the mailing list on some of these topics, we have not
attempted to summarize the specific discussion items and
sub-topics, but we will be happy to do so if this will be
helpful.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Also
attached is the staff-prepared glossary of terms relating to
design marks and GIs, which we have updated slightly to note
the new Amending Regulation in the EU concerning the
definition of a trademark. We hope the glossary is helpful
to everyone in distinguishing and/or defining many of the
terms and usages around design/device/composite/<wbr>figurative
marks, collective and certification marks, GIs and
appellations of origin, etc.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">You may also
wish to note that WIPO maintains a searchable database of
the IP laws of many countries, which you can specify the
country of search as well as the type of IP right (e.g.
copyright, GIs, industrial design, patents, trademarks etc.)
for which you are seeking the applicable legislation or
treaty:
<a href="http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/" target="_blank">http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/<wbr>en/</a>.
<u></u>
<u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Thanks and
cheers<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Mary<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class="gmail-"><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="gmail-m_2135909592767870450moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>