<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Sorry
the last part of my email was lost:<br>
<br>
Proposals for changes to the scope of the RPMs should be re-targeted at 7.1
& 7.2<br>
<br>
The proposed wording in 3.2.3 is not right the current wording would seem to be
fine.<br>
<br>
3.2.4 isn’t really a problem pre se for the RPMs though it is very wide if they
decide to include all types of intellectual property :-) Though is that within our Charter?<br></span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:58 PM Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<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 dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Seems to me the
underlying premise is flawed<br>
<br>
3. <span style="color:red">CRITERIA FOR TRADEMARK INCLUSION IN CLEARINGHOUSE</span><br>
…<br>
3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are:<br>
3.2.1 … 3.2.5<span> </span>etc.<br>
<br>
Whereas the [compulsory] RPMs flow from 7.0<br>
<br>
<span style="color:red">7. PROTECTION FOR MARKS IN CLEARINGHOUSE<br>
</span>The scope of registered marks that must be honored by registries in
providing Trademarks Claims services is broader than those that must be honored
by registries in Sunrise services.<br>
<br>
<span style="color:red">7.1 For Trademark Claims services</span> - Registries
must recognize and honor all word marks that have been or are: (i) nationally
or regionally registered; (ii) court-validated; or (iii) specifically protected
by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the
Clearinghouse for inclusion. No demonstration of use is required.<br>
<br>
<span style="color:red">7.2 For Sunrise services</span> - Registries must
recognize and honor all word marks: (i) nationally or regionally registered and
for which proof of use – which can be a declaration and a single specimen of
current use – was submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse;
or (ii) that have been court-validated; or (iii) that are specifically protected
by a statute or treaty currently in effect and that was in effect on or before
26 June 2008.</span></p>
</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:29 PM Paul Keating <<a href="mailto:Paul@law.es" target="_blank">Paul@law.es</a>> wrote:<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 lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_-3905699391171015071gmail-m_1341741845475070739WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">Seems to me that the majority is attempting to guide the process by not permitting discussin on something that they disagree with .<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 5:22 PM<br><b>To: </b>Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>><br><b>Cc: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Kathy, all,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Last week, we spent the first full hour of the call discussing the first Question 8 proposal, and zero minutes on the second proposal on Question #8 (In comparison we spent much time discussing both proposals for question #7).<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">I am aware that some members spoke in support of the first proposal (I was on audio only), but do not know how many, while some others did not speak in support, and that we agreed to spend this full week to solicit WG members views on the list before moving forward. This week has not yet concluded (we have through today), yet new language is being posted below now for consideration.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">A few additional points, the week prior Phil conducted an informal poll using the Zoom room functionality, which helped provide transparency on WG members views for consensus building, which was not done last week on Question #8. <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Nor has there been an effort to bring the various proponents together to reach a compromise position, which we recently did in the sprint of the consensus-building process on Question #7, the design mark topic. So I’m not sure why question #8 is being treated so differently in all these various ways (as described above) compared to Question #7.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Can someone kindly shed some light on this disparity in treatment between the way we are approaching question 7 and question 8? <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Thanks!<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Claudio<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><br><br>On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><p style="margin-left:0.5in">All,<u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:0.5in">Last week we found considerable overlap and common ground on Q#8. I promised to circulate language sharing that agreement and slightly refining existing proposals.<u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:0.5in">Q#8:<u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:0.5in">3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are: <u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:1in">3.2.1 Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all jurisdictions. <u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:1in">3.2.2 Any word mark that has been validated through a court of law or other judicial proceeding. <u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:1in">3.2.3 Any word marks specified in and protected by a statute or treaty <i>as trademarks </i>[1]<i> </i>in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion. <u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:1in"><s>3.2.4 Other marks that constitute intellectual property. </s>[see below]<u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:1in">3.2.5 Protections afforded to trademark registrations do not extend to applications for registrations, marks.<u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:1in">[1] <i>By "trademarks," the WG means "trademarks, service marks, certification marks and collective marks."</i><u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:1in">For purposes of clarity, separate or ancillary databases of the Trademark Clearinghouse Provider (or another provider) may include other marks, but those databases should not be used for Sunrise or Trademark Claims Notices under the RPMs. Registries may use those separate or ancillary databases to provide additional services but are not required to do so under the RPMs.<u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:0.5in">(Appropriate corresponding changes will be percolated across the <i>Trademark Clearinghouse</i> Applicant Guidebook) <u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:0.5in">-----------------<u></u><u></u></p><p style="margin-left:0.5in">Best, Kathy <u></u><u></u></p></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list <a href="mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org" target="_blank">GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org</a> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div>
_______________________________________________<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/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>