<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Great
to see you here Massimo!
I am delighted to make your acquaintance, I have heard great things about you. <br><br>Two
questions if I may?<br>
Can you refer me to an authority which classifies geographic indications as a
mark please?<br>
Do you support Claudio’s proposal?<br>
<br>
Kind regards, Paul.</span></p>
</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_attr" dir="ltr">On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 9:18 AM Massimo Vittori <<a href="mailto:Massimo@origin-gi.com">Massimo@origin-gi.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div lang="FR">
<div class="gmail-m_6138824193386532753WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Thank you Paul for this effort to reconcile TMCH individual proposals #4 and #5.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">In my view however, the public comments show a substantial opposition to both. Several of them, including the ones from Deloitte, are
based on the fact that GIs should not be excluded from the TMCH (in this respect, Deloitte clearly states that so far it has never deviated from the TMCH Guidelines). I do not see how TMCH individual proposals #4 and #5 (nor this attempt to reconcile them)
can reach consensus.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Happy to discuss it later today.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Massimo <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Tattersfield<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 20, 2020 7:25 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Simplified language to bring together individual TMCH #4 & #5 proposals<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">As promised here is a little further detail on proposals #4# & #5:<br>
<br>
The Trademark Clearinghouse is a central repository for marks. If it was to be a central repository for IP rights it would have been called the IP Clearinghouse.
<br>
<br>
The purpose of a mark is to distinguish the commercial origin of goods or services not to distinguish those goods according to their geographical origin. In contrast to common law based systems under civil law a sign does not become a ‘mark’ until it is registered
as a mark.<br>
<br>
In #5 Claudio was clear “Geographical Indications or Appellations of Origin shall not be eligible for … Sunrise or Claims …unless… also independently registered as trademarks” and in #4 Rebecca chose to underscore “Geographic indications (that are not also
protected as trademarks) are not trademarks”<br>
<br>
There is clearly great utility to providing a central repository for geographical indications. Therefore the question before the working group should be: Can we reach consensus on including geographical indications in a shared ancillary database which does
not flow to either Sunrise or Claims for the final report?<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Improved simplified language to bring together individual TMCH #4 & #5 proposals together<br>
</b><br>
3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt;text-indent:0.5in" class="gmail-m_6138824193386532753gmail-xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-GB">3.2.1 Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all jurisdictions.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0.5in" class="gmail-m_6138824193386532753gmail-xmsonormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">3.2.2 Any word mark that has been validated through a court of law or other judicial proceeding.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0.5in" class="gmail-m_6138824193386532753gmail-xmsonormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">3.2.3 <s><span style="color:red"> Any</span></s> <span style="color:blue">
W</span>ord marks protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0.5in" class="gmail-m_6138824193386532753gmail-xmsonormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">3.2.4 Other marks <span style="color:blue">and indications</span> that constitute intellectual property.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0.5in" class="gmail-m_6138824193386532753gmail-xmsonormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">3.2.5 Protections afforded to trademark registrations do not extend to applications for registrations, marks within any opposition period or registered marks that were the subject of successful invalidation, cancellation or rectification
proceedings.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0.5in" class="gmail-m_6138824193386532753gmail-xmsonormal">
<span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">3.2.6 Protections afforded to word marks protected by statute or treaty, do not extend to [geographical] indications and designations [of origin</span><span style="color:blue">]</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
<b>Background research<br>
<br>
</b>The TMCH rules are defined in an appendix of the AGB. Geographical indications are not mentioned anywhere in the AGB.
<br>
<br>
Deloitte were tasked with drawing up the TMCH Guidelines. The TMCH Guidelines 1.0 February 2013 introduces the first single mention of geographical indications in 2.4.1<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in" class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="EN-GB">2.4.1 For marks protected by statute or treaty, the relevant statute or treaty must be in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion.
<span style="color:red">These marks may include but are not limited to: geographical indications and designations of origin</span></span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
Section 2.4 is poorly drafted and needs work: for example in 2.4.1 the wording “court-validated marks” should read “marks protected by statute or treaty” And there are various incorrect references to trademark holders, assignment and licensing in 2.4.2 & 2.4.3
etc.<br>
<br>
In November 2013 Deloitte released TMCH Guidelines 1.2 which introduced a new section 5 “Verification Guidelines”. Section 5.5 expands “word marks” in the title to “Applicable to Marks protected under statute or treaty”.
<br>
<br>
Sub sections 5.5.1 - 5.5.8 use a confused single example of the geographical indication “Scottish Wild Salmon” to illustrate how a word mark protected by statute or treaty may be submitted to the Trademark Clearinghouse! Again the wording for trademark holders,
assignment and licensing often seems incorrect throughout these subsections.<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:22 PM Paul Tattersfield <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com">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;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Hi All,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
Here is simplified language which brings TMCH #4 & TMCH #5 together after discussions with Rebecca and Claudio.<br>
<br>
The thinking is: <br>
3.2.1, 3.2.2 & 3.2.3 flow to 7.1 claims & 7.2 sunrise<br>
3.2.4 flows to any ancillary databases<br>
<br>
3.2.5 qualifies 3.2.1<br>
The <span style="color:blue">new 3.2.6</span> qualifies 3.2.3 in a way that makes it evident that GIs & AOs are implicitly accepted in 3.2.4.
<br>
<br>
Best regards, <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt;text-indent:0.5in"><span lang="EN-GB">3.2.1 Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all jurisdictions.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:1in">
<span lang="EN-GB">3.2.2 Any word mark that has been validated through a court of law or other judicial proceeding.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:1in">
<span lang="EN-GB">3.2.3 <s><span style="color:red"> Any</span></s> <span style="color:blue">
W</span>ord marks protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">3.2.4 Other marks that constitute intellectual property.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">3.2.5 Protections afforded to trademark registrations do not extend to applications for registrations, marks within any opposition period or registered marks that were the subject of successful invalidation, cancellation or rectification
proceedings.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:0.5in">
<span style="color:blue" lang="EN-GB">3.2.6 Protections afforded to word marks protected by statute or treaty, do not extend to [geographical] indications and designations [of origin</span>]<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Notes:</span><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
<br>
<br>
</span><span lang="EN-GB">This proposal seeks to address the various public comments seeking clarification and tighter wording, by only introducing a small easily understandable change to the existing text.<br>
<br>
It also recognizes the separate legal status and the global importance of GIs and will help GI’s reside in a shared ancillary database to support voluntary RPMs like the “Limited Registration Period” LRP voluntary RPM for .dot Paris. If the mark holders wished
it would even be possible to publish a list of GIs whilst the main trademark database remains confidential.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>