<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body>
<div>Hi George,</div><div><br></div><div>Cool article!</div><div>I don't believe it applies to the RPM WG, tho.</div><div>The article is about confusion between similar, but REGISTERED (ie legal) trademarks.</div><div>The RPMs focus on bad faith actors.</div><div><br></div><div>The article supports TM owners acting legally, not bad actors.</div><div>While interesting, this isn't really pertinent to us.</div><div><br></div><div>Cyntia King</div><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> <br>Date: 11/30/17 10:03 (GMT-06:00) <br>To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <br>Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Is conventional wisdom that the strongest trademarks deserve greater protection simply wrong? <br><br>Hi folks,<br><br>There was a very interesting academic article mentioned last week on<br>The TTABlog:<br><br>http://thettablog.blogspot.ca/2017/11/profs-beebe-and-hemphill-scope-of.html<br><br>from the New York University Law Review by Professors Beebe and<br>Hemphill, "The Scope of Strong Marks: Should Trademark Law Protect<br>the Strong More Than The Weak?," 92 N.Y.U. Law. Rev. 1390 (November<br>2017) [PDF with the full paper is linked to on the blog] which<br>challenges conventional wisdom that underlies some of our own work.<br><br>In their view, the scope of protection for the superstrong marks (e.g.<br>the most famous ones, which tend to be the greatest beneficiaries of<br>the RPMs created by ICANN, e.g. TMHC, URS, UDRP, etc.) should be<br>**lower***, not higher.<br><br>"n this article, we challenge this conventional wisdom. We argue that<br>as a mark achieves very high levels of strength, the relation between<br>strength and confusion turns negative. The very strength of such a<br>superstrong mark operates to ensure that consumers will not mistake<br>other marks for it. Thus, the scope of protection for such marks ought<br>to be narrower compared to merely strong marks. If we are correct,<br>then numerous trademark disputes involving the best-known marks should<br>be resolved differently—in favor of defendants. Our approach draws<br>support from case law of the Federal Circuit—developed but then<br>suppressed by that court—and numerous foreign jurisdictions."<br><br>These fresh insights should be kept in mind as we do our work,<br>particularly as they draw from cutting edge research and cases from<br>outside the USA.<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>George Kirikos<br>416-588-0269<br>http://www.leap.com/<br>_______________________________________________<br>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<br></body></html>