<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<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:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:-webkit-standard;
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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle20
{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>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">Brian<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">There are several separate issues here:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">Your comment regarding the NFL/NBA involves a representative complainant this is proper only when the representative complainant establishes authority to act
on behalf of the trademark holder. In the case of a corporate parent or licensee this a established by evidence (which is not typically part of the PTO record)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">In cases involving multiple Complainant’s, each complainant must establish a trademark with respect to each and every domain at issue. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">It is entirely improper to have multiple Complainants with some having claims against some domains and other Complainants with claims as against other domains.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">To Permit such actions is an undue burden on the respondent who is under both time and page limits and who must respond with both factual evidence and legal
arguments to multiple complainants.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">I am strongly opposed to such a proposition as outlined below.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black">Paul Keating<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="color:black">GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 9:52 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com>, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] WG discussion on proposal #6 - last week<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Thanks Claudio,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">This supplemental clarification fits with what I have understood the proposal to say all along. (For example, the
<a href="https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0128.html">
NFL</a> or <a href="https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0985.html">
Major League Baseball</a> could bring a <a href="https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item411">
consolidated claim</a> on behalf of the teams in their respective league.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Thank you for this – which should allow us to consider this particular discussion closed – as we move towards drafting the Initial Report.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Brian
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>claudio di gangi<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 15, 2020 11:35 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GNSO-RPM-WG] WG discussion on proposal #6 - last week</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">hi all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">I just had a chance to catch up on last week's WG call, when we discussed proposal #6 among other topics.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">Thanks for the robust discussion on this proposal. Since I wasn't able to join, I am writing to clarify and respond to members' questions about how the
proposal is intended to align with the overall design of the URS procedure.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">Under the existing URS procedure, multiple companies, i.e. complainants, are permitted to consolidate their claims against a single domain name registrant
who has registered multiple domain names, but only when they can establish to the panelist that they are all <u>related companies</u>. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">Under the UDRP, multiple
<u>unrelated companies</u> are permitted to consolidate their claim in one proceeding against a single domain name registrant who has registered multiple domain names.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">So the proposal harmonizes the URS with the UDRP in this one respect, by allowing
<u>unrelated companies</u> to consolidate the same way they are permitted to consolidate under the UDRP.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">Under the existing URS, importantly there is no requirement that the
<u>related companies</u> use the same or similar trademarks or other business identifiers in commerce. So the way things exist today the related companies can appear
<u>to be unrelated entities on the surface</u> (because they use different trademarks, trade names, and business identifiers) until their trademark registration certificates (and/or other legal documentation) are reviewed by the panelist in order to establish
that the various companies are in fact related and all fall under the same corporate 'umbrella'. This documentation must be provided by the complainants and reviewed by the panelist under the existing rules.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">Proposal #6 proposes to eliminate this step or requirement, i.e. that the companies are related, because it serves no practical purpose, in order to generate
efficiencies and reduce costs.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">Moreover, in terms of the number of domain names in a particular case: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">the Providers charge additional fees based on the number of domain names per case, with additional fees when the complaint involves over a certain number
of domain names. So the proposal does not touch upon this issue or recommend any changes in this respect.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">I hope this explanation is helpful, and if there are any further questions please do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks in advance for your time.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">Cheers,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#073763">Claudio</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information.
If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>