Paul T.,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for this; have you been able to sort out the question about the overall uniformity of this approach?</div><div><br></div><div>Unfortunately, 3.2.3 has to be a one-size-fits-all rule that covers every jurisdiction worldwide.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, if you see any shortcomings on the new text that Rebecca and I settled on earlier this week, please let us know. I think it accomplishes the goal without implicating the various practices of the TMOs, but of course I am interested in your views.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Claudio<br><br>On Thursday, October 10, 2019, Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">told officially<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:46 PM McGrady, Paul D. <<a href="mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com" target="_blank">PMcGrady@taftlaw.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 lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Thanks Paul T.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">What does “notified to” mean?
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span></b></p>
</div>
<br>
<p style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(129,109,92);font-size:10pt">This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message
are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><wbr>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Tattersfield<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 10, 2019 8:36 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposal re Q8.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB">Hi All. Sorry for the delayed response, would this solve the problem? Best regards, Paul.<br>
<br>
3.2.3 Any word mark <span style="color:blue">notified to a national trademark office established in and</span> protected by statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 5:54 PM claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">Rebecca,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">That's great, I am happy that you support this revised language (personally, I am fine with removing 'service mark' as I do not see that causing a problem, as it has not been an issue to date). Since I feel this
is the most precise text developed to date, let's stay with this going forward (see below).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">3.2.3 Any word mark protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion; the word mark protected by statute or treaty must be</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue"> a
trademark.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">On your other feedback, I did not mean to imply your agreement on 3.2.3 impacts the other elements in your proposal; but simply that we combine the areas where we agree, e.g. there should be no bar on ancillary
services, etc., and then parse out the other areas for consideration.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">I believe that is exactly how the consensus-building process is intended to function. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">From my point of view, an exception to this general rule is the specific case of when the aspects of a particular proposal are so inter-related that they form a package of policy recommendations that can not be
untethered, e.g. a "unitary proposal".<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">Or if someone compromises on an issue they believe is critical, I don't think it's fair to then turn around and say "OK you compromised on this important area, so we'll count you in on the compromise but discard
the rest of your ideas."</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">I'm glad we were able to make further progress before our call on Thursday.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">Best regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">Claudio</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 11:21 AM Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<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 class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">To be clear, my proposal, which is still my proposal, defines trademark to include service marks, collective marks, and certification marks. I believe it makes more sense to do so in a footnote that covers the
entire section 3 than in this subsection. I am happy to use the language you proposed several days ago for 3.2.3, or this (I’d remove service mark given the overall definition) but I am not withdrawing the overall proposal. <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rebecca Tushnet<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">On Oct 8, 2019, at 10:52 AM, claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"></span> <u></u>
<u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">Rebecca,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">Thanks for the feedback; I have removed "referenced by" and "legally recognized as" because 1) by removing, it makes the provision more concise (which I tend to favor) and precise; and 2) I don't think it changes the
meaning of what we are attempting to clarify here. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">Please see below, hope this is satisfactory. I added-in "service mark" because I recall Greg mentioning that on our call two weeks ago for extra clarity, but if we just want to say "trademark" I think its OK (as
services aren't referenced in 3.1.1 or 3.1.2..</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">3.2.3 Any word mark protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion; the word mark protected by statute or treaty must be</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue"> a
trademark/service mark.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 1:29 PM claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">Rebecca, all,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">I am making a final attempt below on 3.2.3; I think this version is more specific, condense, and in alignment with the original spirit of 3.2.3.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">I hope you find this language acceptable. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">If the WG isn't able to each consensus on the exact language on 3.2.3 for inclusion in the Initial Report, then I recommend we defer to staff and/or the IRT that will follow this PDP
for developing more exact language. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">We have the option to simply put forward a general rule for public comment in the Initial Report, i.e. "GIs and Appellations of Origin do not qualify for TM Claims and Sunrise, unless
those signs are independently registered as trademarks," in addition to the other set of provisions which we are generally aligned on w/r/t/ this subject matter, e.g. "there shall be no prohibition on using the same ancillary database for GIs across multiple
new gTLDs, etc."</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">------</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:blue">3.2.3 Any word mark protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion; the word mark protected by statute or treaty must function as, or be</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue"> legally
recognized as, a trademark or service mark.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">------</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">Of course, I remain open to your thoughts and any additional input WG members may have. Thanks!</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">Best regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">Claudio</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:26 PM claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<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 class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">Sorry, but this made me think about the Boy Scouts legislation under U.S. law, see: </span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.law.cornell.edu_uscode_text_36_30905&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=AB-OFCOWkNtMN0rGQpsDXsXljiOXE-4OgNXtMdPp9lA&s=N6x8UPsvMdhkmJxwLwIOP6wkHxGQiGzWyNVc7CYO6EI&e=" target="_blank">https://www.law.cornell.<wbr>edu/uscode/text/36/30905</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)">The </span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">corporation</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)"> has the exclusive right to use
emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the </span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">corporation</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)"> adopts. This section does not affect
any vested rights.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)">.....</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)">So I think we just need to change “identified” with “referenced” because identified is too specific. If the Boy Scout corporation adopts a new mark, it will be protected as a
trademark under U.S law, but that trademark is not “identified” within the statue (depending on how strictly one interprets “identified”), but it is “referenced” in the statute.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:12.85pt"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">3.2.3 Any word mark protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion, and which is referenced within the Statute or Treaty as
a mark that functions as a trademark.</span> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">Hope you are still OK with this Rebecca? Thanks!<br>
</span><br>
On Thursday, October 3, 2019, Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Claudio's proposal would then read <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">3.2.3 Any word mark protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion, and which is identified within the Statute or Treaty as
a mark that functions as a trademark</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I'm fine with that. For comparison purposes, my proposed language (with bold indicating additions to current language) is:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Any word marks <b>specified in and
</b>protected by a statute or treaty <b>as trademarks</b> in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion.</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Relatedly, I got further information from Dev Gangjee (who studies GIs) and Robert Burrell (an expert on the Australian registration system), both of whom reported that GIs are listed with the TM offices with which
they are familiar (in Australia wine GIs get special treatment), so unless Paul's proposal is also coupled with a "Notwithstanding the foregoing, no GIs," I don't think it would do the job that the consensus appears to want done. For the reasons discussed
on the call, I'm uncomfortable with a rule that appears to single out GIs for exclusion while allowing non-TM, non-GIs. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rebecca Tushnet<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr size="3" width="98%" align="center">
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 3, 2019 1:15 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Michael Graham (ELCA) <<a href="mailto:migraham@expediagroup.com" target="_blank">migraham@expediagroup.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>>; Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>>; gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposal re Q8.</span> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Michael, <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree with the points that Rebecca here, just noting that I believe the closest analogy is GIs function in a similar manner as certification or collective trademarks in the U.S.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In fact, this is how I believe the USPTO sets forth that GIs are protected in the U.S as per the obligations the U.S has undertaken as a signatory of the international TRIPS agreement. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Whereas, collective and certification marks are examined on absolute and relative grounds, GIs are protected through sui generis legislation (in believe in most cases, it’s possible they may be protected under common law in some jurisdictions
but I’m not sure) - as certain trademarks like those protected by statue or treaty are sui generis in form.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is why I always felt that the TMCH Operator in good faith interpreted 3.2.3 to potentially allow GIs in the Clearinghouse, with all the qualifying language they added (such as “may be eligible” - I don’t think they ever stated “are
eligible”), and we did not know if or any GIs are still recorded in the TMCH.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my personal view, (albeit, I am not an expert on GIs), I believe the number of countries that protect GIs has substantially increased since the First WIPO Process, providing more universality across the spectrum, compared to when this
issue was initially considered by the international community under WIPO’s inclusive consultation on IP and DNS policy.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In addition, I believe in most countries that protect GIs through sui generis legislation, a senior GI has priority over a later registered trademark for the same class of goods/services.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">But since trademarks are protected in every country worldwide through a combination of common law, statutory law, or constitutional law, I understand/support the perspective that Sunrise should take place first, based on that correspondence
of global protection.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The only incongruence that I can potentially see arising is if a junior trademark holder in a certain country uses Sunrise to register a domain during Sunrise when actually the GI rights holder in that country has senior or superior rights.
For example, there is often litigation where a national (or district) court in a country will hold that the GI has priority over the junior mark in that country, even if the trademark was registered in good faith.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Perhaps this can be addressed by having a provision in the SDRP policy for this very scenario (which registries may voluntarily choose to adopt), or we could consider adding it to the mandatory SDRP (but I defer to the Co-chairs and the
WG). <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In other words, the objective is to match offline IP law with the DNS and the associated rules for allocating domain names, e.g. if the GI rights holder can provide a court decision to the TMCH Operator that demonstrates it has priority
under the national law of its country against the junior mark holder in its country. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Although, what may occur in practice is the court will require cancellation of the junior trademark, so I’m not sure it’s necessary. I defer to others who have substantive experience practicing law in this space, like Jonathan Agmon to
help inform us with their perspective.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rebecca,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We can remove source identifier from my definition if that makes you more comfortable; I don’t think it’s necessary to have it included in my 3.2.3. Is that satisfactory for you then to accept my definition?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Claudio<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019, Michael Graham (ELCA) <<a href="mailto:migraham@expediagroup.com" target="_blank">migraham@expediagroup.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>
<div>
<p>Wondering out loud whether GIs are necessarily “source identifiers”. My understanding is that they are identifiers of particular geographic locations, whereas trademarks are source identifiers. GIs may be source identifiers, but to the extent they are
then they would be considered trademarks. So . . . am I missing something in the terminology?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Michael R.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<table style="border-collapse:collapse" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr style="height:3.5pt">
<td rowspan="6" style="width:98.25pt;padding:0in 0.05in;height:3.5pt" width="130">
<p style="text-align:justify"><img style="width:0.55in;height:0.55in" src="https://dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_image_fetch?cid=1016&ep=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" alt="cid:image001.png@01D49D39.23E390C0" width="53" height="53" border="0"><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
<td style="width:4in;padding:0in 0.05in;height:3.5pt" width="382">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,153)"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,153)"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,153)">Michael R. Graham</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:3.5pt">
<td style="width:4in;padding:0in 0.05in;height:3.5pt" width="382">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:black">Senior Counsel and Global Director,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:black">Intellectual Property,</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(109,110,112)">
</span><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(147,149,152)">Expedia Group</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:3.5pt">
<td style="width:4in;padding:0in 0.05in;height:3.5pt" width="382">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(109,110,112)" lang="FR">T +1 425 679 4330</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"CenturyGothic",serif;color:rgb(109,110,112)" lang="FR">
| M</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(109,110,112)" lang="FR"> +1 425 241 1459</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(109,110,112)" lang="FR">333 108<sup>th</sup> Ave. NE | Bellevue | WA 98004</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:3.5pt">
<td style="width:4in;padding:0in 0.05in;height:3.5pt" width="382">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,153)">Email:
</span><u><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:blue"><a href="mailto:migraham@expediagroup.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">migraham@expediagroup.com</span></a></span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:3.5pt">
<td style="width:4in;padding:0in 0.05in;height:3.5pt" width="382">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,153)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:7.65pt">
<td style="width:4in;padding:0in 0.05in;height:7.65pt" width="382">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,153)"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img style="width:0.55in;height:0.4166in" src="https://dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_image_fetch?cid=1016&ep=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" alt="cid:image002.png@01D49D39.23E390C0" width="53" height="40" border="0"><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;padding:3pt 0in 0in;border-color:currentcolor">
<p><b>From:</b> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><wbr>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Tushnet, Rebecca<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 1, 2019 1:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>>; Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposal re Q8.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p><span style="color:black">From my perspective, the key problem is that "source identifier" describes, among other things, GIs. We can engage in special pleading against GIs and just carve them out, but I admit that leaves me a bit sour. I also would note
that the relevant statutes I've seen don't use the words "source identifier" either, so we are still shuffling off the interpretive weight to Deloitte. (E.g., although the Red Cross also has TM registrations, the Red Cross US statute that has been mentioned
in this discussion uses the word "use" to define one prohibited act, and </span>
<span style="font-size:10pt;color:black">"</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">wears or displays ... for the fraudulent purpose of inducing the belief that he is a member of or an agent for
the American National Red Cross" to define the other prohibited act.) </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">For these reasons, I have come around to not wanting to add "source identifier" to the definition--I don't think it actually solves the problem and it might make
things even less clear. Other than that, I do think we have gotten a lot closer.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rebecca Tushnet</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr size="2" width="98%" align="center">
</div>
<div>
<p><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span style="color:black"> claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 1, 2019 4:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>>; gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposal re Q8.</span> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue">Paul,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue">I agree with you; and you have spotted one of the areas of divergence between my proposal and Rebecca's.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue">My proposal includes alternative language on this provision - that I believe addresses your point, but I am interested in your perspective.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue">Best regards,<br>
Claudio</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p>On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 4:00 PM Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Rebecca, I believe in 3.2.3 you should not add the words "as trademarks" as the marks concerned are not trademarks. For example once such 6ter marks are communicated to the USPTO and are accepted it is not
possible for any organization to register a trademark containing the mark and importantly that includes the originating entity itself. Instead an 89 serial is created so the mark turns up in an examining attorney’s search etc.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Best regards, Paul<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p>On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:04 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="color:black">This is the same text but with the subject line proper. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rebecca Tushnet</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>______________________________<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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=zNkRTU6mF0Z0D3-x2yYFYqRN-laL_rrDxkm1t3nS1D0&s=sIWgLf6tJOr4bVrRl2Kq-iflUaAJ5xM7solSCPqTSEM&e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=zNkRTU6mF0Z0D3-x2yYFYqRN-laL_rrDxkm1t3nS1D0&s=ACGGg3oDhOg63w3gCmDwRhR4IOgKM68xVpS38jPW6Ek&e=" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/<wbr>privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=zNkRTU6mF0Z0D3-x2yYFYqRN-laL_rrDxkm1t3nS1D0&s=FFCUiGsakbAYTolDM5UiMxZBkB4wC55n8jDUnUzd3Uk&e=" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/<wbr>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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p>______________________________<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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=zNkRTU6mF0Z0D3-x2yYFYqRN-laL_rrDxkm1t3nS1D0&s=sIWgLf6tJOr4bVrRl2Kq-iflUaAJ5xM7solSCPqTSEM&e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=zNkRTU6mF0Z0D3-x2yYFYqRN-laL_rrDxkm1t3nS1D0&s=ACGGg3oDhOg63w3gCmDwRhR4IOgKM68xVpS38jPW6Ek&e=" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/<wbr>privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=zNkRTU6mF0Z0D3-x2yYFYqRN-laL_rrDxkm1t3nS1D0&s=FFCUiGsakbAYTolDM5UiMxZBkB4wC55n8jDUnUzd3Uk&e=" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/<wbr>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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<font size="1" face="Arial" color="Gray"><br>
</font>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>