<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Thank you Mary<div><br></div><div>However, to clarify, the treaty allows any member to list an acronym. There is no requirement that it be otherwise registered or treated as a trademark/service mark (even in the “sponsoring member state). It also allows members to object to any specified acronym. </div><div><br></div><div>The USPTO’s position is that such acronyms are merely common law claims which require proof or a formal registration as a trademark. </div><div><br></div><div>For these (and other) reasons the WG on this issue (of which I was a part) declined to grant them any special rights under the UDRP other than to the extent the holder could satisfy the requirements for a common law trademark. </div><div><br></div><div>I see no reason for GIs to be treated any differently. </div><div><br></div><div>And of course these same issues should preclude the holder from participating in the TMCH process. <br><br><div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 10 Oct 2019, at 23:58, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Century Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:CenturyGothic;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hope it’s appropriate for staff to comment here, as a relatively similar discussion took place in the IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP. As with RPMs, the fundamental principle was that any domain name policy protections should reflect, and
not expand, existing legal rights. The issue was the existence of substantive legal rights (if any) in the names, acronyms, signs and emblems of international organizations (both governmental and non-governmental), e.g. the Red Cross, other NGOs, agencies
of the United Nations, other international organizations established by treaty, etc. The question was whether the sort of legal protections offered by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property are equivalent to, or confer,
substantive legal rights (Article 6ter obligates member states to, in part, <i>“refuse or to invalidate the registration, and to prohibit by appropriate measures the use… either as trademarks or as elements of trademarks … emblems, abbreviations and names
of international intergovernmental organizations”</i>). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Legal commentators have noted that this treaty provision does not itself create an industrial property right; rather, it creates an obligation for states to prevent third party registrations of the protected names, abbreviations and so
on as trademarks. In addition, as the treaty is not self-executing, it does not confer a right of action in member states unless those states enact legislation that allow the protected organizations such a means of enforcement. Finally, it may also not be
enough to rely on a notification procedure, since that may simply indicate the existence of a form of protection, and not necessarily a substantive right.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Therefore, and in line with what Rebecca has noted, a treaty provision that does not clearly indicate that a mark is a trademark could place it into a similar type of “protected” category as geographical indicators, unless there exists
specific national legislation that actually specifies it to be a trademark. This could be the case, for instance, for an NGO such as the Red Cross or the International Olympic Committee, where the applicable international treaties may not explicitly state
that they are trademarks, but one or more national statutes may do. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Julie, Ariel & Mary<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 17:46<br>
<b>To: </b>"Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu><br>
<b>Cc: </b>gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposal re Q8.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span lang="EN-GB">“I
<span style="color:black">don't see how that's different conceptually from "the marks that the national GI Registry accepts,"</span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"> - It’s different because it’s the marks of the specific [treaty] organization,
rather than a registry full of third party marks / GIs etc.<br>
<br>
What compounds the problem is t</span><span lang="EN-GB">he Paris Convention requires that a state refuse to register designations that have been notified (deposited) pursuant to Article 6<i>ter</i> and to which the state has notified (transmitted) no objections.<span style="color:black">
<br>
<br>
eg. the UNHCR 89 serial 89000825 which effectively blocks everyone; even their own organizations’ trademark applications e.g. 77663317 for “UNHCR BLUE KEY” which was refused / had to be withdrawn.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:20 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">But then the acronym is only "protected by" the treaty/statute in the same way that unregistered marks are "protected by" Lanham Act 43(a) in the US--I'd be willing to say that a statute that says
"the United Nations Human Rights Commission and its acronym" specifies UNHRC, but not that "the marks of the United Nations Human Rights Commission" specifies what's to be protected. I don't see how that's different conceptually from "the marks that the national
GI Registry accepts," which I think there is consensus should not count as protected by statute. Those GIs are, as far as I can tell, often sent to national TM registries so it seems to me that your proposal puts them right back in.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-3820560022809469261Signature">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-3820560022809469261divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span style="color:black"> Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 10, 2019 3:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>>; Michael Graham (ELCA) <<a href="mailto:migraham@expediagroup.com" target="_blank">migraham@expediagroup.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> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposal re Q8.</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span lang="EN-GB">Rebecca, The danger of posting on the fly during the WG call, sorry ‘specified in’ would have too limited scope, for example an organization’s acronym may not be actually spelt out in the body of the treaty text.<br>
<br>
Claudio, The scope needs to be defined sufficiently precisely for it not to matter, because it is impossible to second guess future statutes.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:27 PM claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I didn't catch/understand your earlier response on the uniformity of this approach by every trademark office in the world.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Have you confirmed whether every TMO is notified and keeps a separate record of the marks protected by statute/treaty under their national laws, in the same approach as the U.S. or EU?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<br>
Claudio<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:16 PM Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">‘specified in’ would be ok.Personally I wouldn't define trademark here.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:04 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">I could get comfortable with "specified in" but "established" seems wiggly to me--how would you feel about "specified in" instead? Relatedly, would you propose to not define trademark? Given its
use through the AGB, I'd still be in favor of a definition for greater certainty (understanding that we have a separate issue about the meaning of "word mark").<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-3820560022809469261x_gmail-m_6006830688536840060gmail-m_2798033653730676291gmail-m_-7359162524165359307Signature">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-3820560022809469261x_gmail-m_6006830688536840060gmail-m_2798033653730676291gmail-m_-7359162524165359307divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span style="color:black"> Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 10, 2019 12:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>>; Michael Graham (ELCA) <<a href="mailto:migraham@expediagroup.com" target="_blank">migraham@expediagroup.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> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposal re Q8.</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">We need a way to include marks like UNHCR because they are established under their own specific treaty (or convention). What we don’t want is for the language to be too loosely drawn so it inadvertently protects
GIs etc. simply because they are protected collectively under the Paris Convention or TRIPS etc. Hence the words “established in”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">3.2.3 Any word mark <span style="color:blue">
notified to a national trademark office </span><span style="color:red">established in</span><span style="color:blue"> and</span> protected by statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt">
Clearinghouse for inclusion</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:13 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">I don't think I understand what your proposal is now. Can you provide the language you think would exclude GIs but allow other non-trademarks?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-3820560022809469261x_gmail-m_6006830688536840060gmail-m_2798033653730676291gmail-m_-7359162524165359307x_gmail-m_-6025641343598805302Signature">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-3820560022809469261x_gmail-m_6006830688536840060gmail-m_2798033653730676291gmail-m_-7359162524165359307x_gmail-m_-6025641343598805302divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span style="color:black"> Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 10, 2019 11:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>>; Michael Graham (ELCA) <<a href="mailto:migraham@expediagroup.com" target="_blank">migraham@expediagroup.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> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposal re Q8.</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I was under the impression they are established by register (DOOR etc) rather than by established specifically [with]in a statute. If this is not the case then we probably need to split 3.2.3 into 3.2.3 (a) statute &
3.2.3 (b) treaty (We can tidy the numbers later of course).</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:42 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu" target="_blank">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">No, because GIs appear to be formally submitted to a number of TM offices worldwide. As I’ve said, to do this would either admit a bunch of GIs or require “notwithstanding” language. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On Oct 10, 2019, at 9:36 AM, Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:blue">Rebecca,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue"> a
trademark.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:blue">I believe that is exactly how the consensus-building process is intended to function.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:blue"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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".<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:blue">I'm glad we were able to make further progress before our call on Thursday.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:blue">Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:blue">Claudio</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On Oct 8, 2019, at 10:52 AM, claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:blue">Rebecca,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue"> a
trademark/service mark.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">Rebecca, all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">I hope you find this language acceptable. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">------</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue"> legally recognized as, a trademark or service mark.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">------</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">Claudio</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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.edu/uscode/text/36/30905</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333">The </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">corporation</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333"> has
the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">corporation</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333"> adopts.
This section does not affect any vested rights.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333">.....</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:12.85pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Claudio's proposal would then read <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">I'm fine with that. For comparison purposes, my proposed language (with bold indicating additions to current language) is:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;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-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;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. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="0" width="81%" align="center">
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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> 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> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Michael, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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). <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rebecca,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Claudio<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Michael R.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr style="height:3.5pt">
<td width="131" rowspan="6" style="width:98.25pt;padding:0in .05in 0in .05in;height:3.5pt">
<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><img border="0" width="121" height="96" style="width:1.2604in;height:1.0in" id="_x0000_i1027" src="http://mail/u/1/s/?view=att&th=16d8d44103fba857&attid=0.2&disp=emb&realattid=c9532aa009aacf45_0.1&zw&atsh=1" data-unique-identifier=""></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td width="384" style="width:4.0in;padding:0in .05in 0in .05in;height:3.5pt">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:#000099"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:#000099"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:#000099">Michael R. Graham</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:3.5pt">
<td width="384" style="width:4.0in;padding:0in .05in 0in .05in;height:3.5pt">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:black">Senior Counsel and Global Director,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:black">Intellectual Property,</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:#6D6E70">
</span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:#939598">Expedia Group</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:3.5pt">
<td width="384" style="width:4.0in;padding:0in .05in 0in .05in;height:3.5pt">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:#6D6E70">T +1 425 679 4330</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"CenturyGothic",serif;color:#6D6E70">
| M</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:#6D6E70"> +1 425 241 1459</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:#6D6E70">333 108<sup>th</sup> Ave. NE | Bellevue | WA 98004</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:3.5pt">
<td width="384" style="width:4.0in;padding:0in .05in 0in .05in;height:3.5pt">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:#000099">Email:
</span><u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:blue"><a href="mailto:migraham@expediagroup.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563C1">migraham@expediagroup.com</span></a></span></u><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:3.5pt">
<td width="384" style="width:4.0in;padding:0in .05in 0in .05in;height:3.5pt">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:#000099"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:7.65pt">
<td width="384" style="width:4.0in;padding:0in .05in 0in .05in;height:7.65pt">
<p style="text-align:justify;vertical-align:middle"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:#000099"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img border="0" width="365" height="40" style="width:3.802in;height:.4166in" id="_x0000_i1026" src="http://mail/u/1/s/?view=att&th=16d8d44103fba857&attid=0.1&disp=emb&realattid=c9532aa009aacf45_0.2&zw&atsh=1" data-unique-identifier=""><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:currentcolor 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>>
<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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:10.0pt;color:black">"</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rebecca Tushnet</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="0" width="79%" 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> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue">Paul,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue">Best regards,<br>
Claudio</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt">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><span lang="EN-GB">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Best regards, Paul<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">This is the same text but with the subject line proper. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Rebecca Tushnet</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>_______________________________________________<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/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://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/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/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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p>_______________________________________________<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/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://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/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/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.<o:p></o:p></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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>