<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta content="script-src 'self'; img-src * cid: data:;">
<style id="x_outgoing-font-settings">
<!--
#x_response_container_BBPPID
{font-family:initial;
font-size:initial;
color:initial}
-->
</style>
<div style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255); line-height:initial">
<div id="x_response_container_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="outline:none">
<div name="x_BB10" id="x_BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%">
One quick point. You would not necessarily know what someone's portfolio might be as one would not necessarily know where all of a brand owners marks were registered. I suppose someone could spend hours figuring this out with painstaking searches. The point
is that brand owners have been subjected to well documented abuse over the years and so are quite sensitive to giving yet more tools and abilities to those who want to tale advantage of others rights for profit. The flip side of the closed registry is that
there has been some sort of abuse of the system. However, after three plus years of discussing these issue I have yet to see any substantial evidence of widespread abuse. So in my mind this is a straw person argument and I really do not see why we are relitigating
or discussing what has been discussed extensively already in the past.</div>
<div name="x_BB10" id="x_response_div_spacer_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%">
<br style="display:initial">
</div>
<div id="x_blackberry_signature_BBPPID" name="x_BB10" dir="auto">
<div id="x__signaturePlaceholder_BBPPID" name="x_BB10" dir="auto"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="x__original_msg_header_BBPPID" dir="auto">
<table width="100%" style="background-color:white; border-spacing:0px; display:table; outline:none">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="padding:initial; font-size:initial; text-align:initial; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div style="border-right:none; border-bottom:none; border-left:none; border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223); padding:3pt 0in 0in; font-family:Tahoma,"BB Alpha Sans","Slate Pro"; font-size:10pt">
<div id="x_from"><b>From:</b> mkaranicolas@gmail.com</div>
<div id="x_sent"><b>Sent:</b> October 12, 2019 8:30 PM</div>
<div id="x_to"><b>To:</b> gregshatanipc@gmail.com</div>
<div id="x_cc"><b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</div>
<div id="x_subject"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Thanks Greg. Now can you explain to me why a person who wanted to know<br>
this "confidential strategy" wouldn't just go to any registrar, search<br>
for domains corresponding to the trademarks that an entity has<br>
registered, and see when a claims notification pops up, to get an<br>
accurate and complete picture of which marks they have chosen to put<br>
into the TMCH?<br>
<br>
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:42 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Jason and all,<br>
><br>
> This "elaborate scenario" (filing "in “remote” jurisdictions with non-searchable DBs to gain a priority date") is not at all the rationale that was put forth by those in favor of a closed TMCH database.<br>
><br>
> I believe it's incorrect to say that this scenario was raised (in the chat, by John McElwaine, or otherwise) introduced this concept as part of an argument in favor of a closed TMCH database.<br>
><br>
> I am not even aware of the use of the strategy as described in its totality. I think this may be an unfortunate misunderstanding or mis-recollection of the earlier discussions and the surrounding facts.<br>
><br>
> As I recall, the rationale is much more straightforward: A brand owner's choice of the subset of their trademarks to put in the TMCH is a confidential strategy. Giving third parties knowledge of this strategy allows these third parties to engage in activities
that would harm TMCH registrants, which in turn would discourage use of the TMCH. These activities include: Targeting the brand owner's marks not in the TMCH for domain name registrations that can then be exploited in various ways; Developing a counter-strategy
for TMCH registration (either by registering the same marks in the TMCH to enable contested Sunrises, or by registering the non-TMCH marks to gain advantage in Sunrise); Targeting the non-TMCH marks for counterfeiting, knock-offs, etc. (on the theory that
the brand owner is less likely to put resources into policing and enforcing these less important marks), etc.<br>
><br>
> However, if I'm incorrect about any of this, I'm always happy to learn new facts.<br>
><br>
> I am aware that some applicants may choose to file in jurisdictions where registrations issue more quickly. Even this limited scenario is not the practice of any brand owners I have represented or of which I'm specifically aware. I can't speak to who or
what type of applicant engages in even this limited practice.<br>
><br>
> I do recall that one or a few people or entities have used some aspects of this strategy or something similar to try to "game" Sunrise. The specific concern about gaming the TMCH and Sunrise is one that I believe we need to deal with. I believe we should
do this in a targeted fashion, both to get to consensus in the WG and to avoid disadvantaging legitimate TMCH registrants.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> Greg<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:52 PM Jason Schaeffer <jason@esqwire.com> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi All,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Sorry for not being able to address this on yesterday’s call – I was bounced from the Zoom and couldn’t reconnect from my mobile. After much consideration of the chat comments and statements during the past two calls I’ve parsed together the following strategy
concerns that might be at issue. It seems the opposition to an open/transparent TMCH have set forth the following rationale:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Large brand owners like the ability to file in “remote” jurisdictions with non-searchable DBs to gain a priority date that can later be used for priority presumably in the US under a Section 44 application under the Paris Convention. For example, Party
A could “secretly” register in say Mauritius or Jamaica (jurisdictions that I believe do not have searchable DBs), and then file a Section 44 with the USPTO when ready to “go public.” In this scenario, large brand owner obtains the earlier priority date
in the US without having disclosed its “secret” brand plans or strategy. Alternatively, there may also be a similar use case with a registration in the EU. This is what I understand the opposition was presenting in the comments last week and again yesterday.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> This use of the “secret TM priority” filing method is one thing, and I understand the ostensible business intelligence concerns to require such a tactic. However, we are discussing this in the context of the TMCH. How can these parties obtain Sunrise
protection without proof of use? This is even more challenging in the case of an EU registration that might not be based on actual use.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> If the project is top secret and subject to heightened secrecy, how can the party then show legitimate use of the mark and obtain TMCH protection while maintaining its purported heightened secrecy? What is the POU and what is the declarant stating to the
TMCH? Is this the position that the opposition is proffering to block transparency of the TMCH?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> In addition, if I am correctly capturing how the method is employed in practice, it would be helpful to know if this practice is really in widespread use or rather an outlier, because I’m not yet seeing an important justification that outweighs the important
benefits of an open TMCH.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Jason<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list<br>
>> GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org<br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">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.<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list<br>
> GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org<br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">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.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list<br>
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">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.</div>
</span></font><br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Black" size="1"><br>
Confidentiality Notice:<br>
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission,
and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission
is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.<br>
</font><br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Black" size="1"><br>
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>