IAG Members,<div><br></div><div>I have not been emailing my comments to the list, but to Karen directly as a Word doc. It seems like the comments are mostly circulating by email, so I'll give it a try here.</div><div>
<br></div><div>
I've read the recent interactions. Thanks to Keith and Tom for both adding a lot of analysis. </div><div><br>I've updated my original thoughts in the attached. I'll paste it into the email, since that appears to be what everyone is doing. </div>
<div><br></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Techlaw LLP</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Dana Robinson</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ICANN Issues T1, T3,
N1 and N2 (Round 2)</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>February 2, 2012</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>IAG Priority N1</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Issue: Authentication
Standards</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I submitted my input on the five enumerated questions posed
in this slide a couple of weeks ago.
I saw excellent feedback from Keith Barritt on January 26, and again on
February 2. Below, are my
additional thoughts.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>1. If
contact verification is employed, should this be repeated for every new
trademark record submitted, or could it be only when a new contact record is
initiated?</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
No additional comments.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>2. What
is the optimal level of authentication of the party submitting the trademark
rights to the clearinghouse? How much cost are users willing to bear for
additional layers or levels of authentication? For any additional
authentication steps proposed, what value would be added for Clearinghouse
users?</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my original N1 response, I argued for letters being
submitted, or some other authentication of the submitting party. I see excellent feedback from Keith and
agree that if the owner of the mark is ultimately matched to the owner of the
submission with the TMC, then we may not care about their identity or
relationship to the owner. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>3. Is
it desirable or necessary to provide a more in-depth authentication of the
trademark rights themselves? How much cost are users willing to bear for those
additional layers or levels of authentication, and what value do they add to
Clearinghouse users?</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In two recent emails, Keith brought up the question about
the difference between the validation and authentication processes as well as
their general usage. Tom responded
that these are two separate processes, however, I am still unclear as to what
the authentication process serves.
We are using “authentication” for the questions about owners (See N1
Q1). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my previous comments to Priority N1 Q3, I noted that authentication
should be fairly thorough. I stand
by this if what we mean by authentication is a voluntary process that a mark
owner undertakes in order to avail itself of some additional benefit. But, maybe I need to revise my opinion
once I figure out what the authentication serves. Is this an additional layer? If so, what does the mark owner get for it? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>4. What
safeguards or penalties could be established for misuse of data (e.g., a party
takes publicly available data and makes submissions to the Clearinghouse in its
own name)? Is this a significant concern?</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No additional comments.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>5. How
can we, and do we need to, mitigate any inequity if some data can be verified
online and other data cannot?</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree with Tom’s suggestion that costs be borne by the
party who submits time-consuming authentication documents. If a streamlined process makes it cheap
and easy to verify data online for most marks, then those who submit should be
rewarded. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>IAG Priority N2</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Issue: Validation
Standard for Proof of Use</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>1. Is
it desirable or necessary to establish more onerous standards for certain parts
of the review of samples in validating for use? For instance, should validation
for use include consideration as to how the sample matches the class of goods
or services? Is there additional value to mark holders and to Clearinghouse
users of more detailed (and thus more expensive) examination of samples?</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let me add the following to my previous submission.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, the use of “validation” is only for sunrise claims,
correct? If so, then why not have
a fairly rigid standard of examination for those who wish to avail themselves
of the benefits of the sunrise process?
In this regard, I think that a more onerous standard should be
applied. A validated submission
should not be rubber stamped.
Trained personnel should apply a thorough examination if a submission
will be “validated.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the issue of specimens, Keith’s comments on both N1 and
N2 were insightful. He takes issue
with my suggestion that proof of use be more than for one good or service. I see his point, and can imagine the
additional burden on the owner and on the TMC for validating many specimens of
use. But, I have seen many, many
overbroad registrations that are likely to be used to make overbroad claims in
the sunrise process. If the
validation procedure is only for sunrise claims, then forcing the owners to
show use of their mark on all goods that they want to claim would not be
unreasonable and prevent abuse by those who overreach in their trademark
registrations (which is very common, unfortunately). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maybe it is irrelevant whether or not the validating
trademark owner has made overbroad claims of goods or services. Is it sufficient that the owner have a
validated claim, regardless of what it is for? If the actual goods or services are a non-issue, then I
concur with Keith that the specimen need only be for one good or service
identified in the trademark registration.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree with a comment from Keith that we need to figure out
how to deal with descriptive marks, Supplemental Registrations and disclaimed
terms. Do you allow validation of
a mark that is a Supplemental Registration? This would entitle someone to claim otherwise descriptive
domains in the sunrise process based on a registration that is admittedly
descriptive. On the one hand, we
do allow a Supplemental Registration to block a Principal Registration or subsequent
Supplementals that are confusingly similar. However, there is an opportunity for overreaching, and even
for filing of Supplemental Registrations for descriptive phrases in order to
use the Supplemental Registration in the sunrise process. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further, what do we do with design marks where the whole
literal element is disclaimed?
Someone has to be reading these applications with an awareness of this
type of registration.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the issue of partial disclaimers, I suppose that the
owner of the mark is only able to use the whole string in a sunrise claim. Thus, it seems acceptable to validate
the whole text string used in the mark, because the registration itself is for
only the whole mark and not the disclaimed portions “apart from the mark as
shown.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also, I am not clear on the language now that I look more
closely. It appears that if a mark
has been “protected” by a statute, court or treaty, then it can be validated
without demonstration of use. But,
if it has not been protected by a statute, court or treaty, then the mark owner
must submit proof of use. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What does it mean to show that a mark has been protected by
a statute? Is the issuance of a
federal trademark registration in the U.S., a mark that is “protected” by a
statute? Can the owner of a
federal registration validate for sunrise without showing specimens of
use? The registration is issued
under federal statutes. If this is
the case, then when will evidence of use ever need to be shown? Virtually all jurisdictions use statutes
to enable the issuance of national registrations. U.S. individual states have statutory schemes for their state-wide
trademark registration systems.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>2. How
frequently should proof-of-use be re-verified? For example, could a verified
proof of use be valid for a year or more?</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have no changes to my previous comments.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>3. What
should be the process for notifying the Clearinghouse if the mark holder
abandons use of the mark?</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have no changes to my previous comments.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>IAG Priority T1</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Issue: Implementation:
Data Locations</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From my perspective (moderately non-technical), the role of
the TMC is to be the gatekeeper. I
have seen mostly comments that reflect a concern over data mining and misuse of
the TMC data, as it will be a unique repository of trademarks not otherwise
collected in any other centralized manner. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, Tom Barrett’s Feb 1, 2012 comments present
arguments that the data can be mined regardless of where it is stored.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While I cannot present a conclusion, I can suggest that the
technical participants do a fairly robust analysis of whether the TMC can even
do the job on a 99% basis if all data is retained by the TMC. If it can, then this option still seems
to make sense. If there are real
threats to the TMC’s ability to do its job as both gatekeeper and provider of
data, then the data will have to be entrusted to registries in some way that
makes the TMC comfortable that the registries are providing the data in a way
that prevents data mining and stops unwanted conduct from a technological
standpoint. I appreciate and
concur in Tom’s final comment:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>One final thought regarding Data Locations. This decision does not need to be
"either-or". The TMCH
could start out with a centralized data approach.</i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>After the first round of gTLD's, this issue could be re-visited to see
if data distribution is warranted.</i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>IAG Priority T3</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Issue: Implementation:
Communication Protocols</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This T3 appears to be a different slide than the last
T3. I am glad for the flowchart,
which is very helpful. But, I
cannot add anything intelligent to the open questions. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One thing that might be helpful at this point is to have a
flow chart that actually shows where the “authentication” comes into play. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Keith Barritt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:barritt@fr.com" target="_blank">barritt@fr.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<br>
<br>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><img width="386" height="56" src="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=cbfc702aba&view=att&th=13541f4d99240d1d&attid=0.0.1&disp=emb&realattid=f834164b98034dd8_0.0.1&zw" alt="Description: Description: Description: Description: http://fishnet.fr.com/C15/Marketing%20Department%20Policies/Fish%20Logos/FR_logo.jpg"></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Fellow IAG Members:<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Below are my comments on both N1 and N2, which expand on my earlier comments of January 26. But first I again query why we have two verbs – “authentication” and “validation” – when either one (or simply “verification”) would seem to suffice quite nicely for both areas. In short, what is the <i><u>point</u></i> of having different verbs? The TMC should verify/authenticate/validate factual information, whether that is the trademark registration/treaty/statute/judicial status of the mark. I believe we should simplify as much as possible all of the new terminology that tens of thousands of people or more around the world will have to learn. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">And while I know this is almost certainly a lost cause, and proper apologies for my inability to come to terms with it yet, at least in my own notes I still always use “TMC” and not “TMCH.” While the convention of abbreviating “trademark” as “TM” is long-established, it seems odd to me to abbreviate the single word “clearinghouse” based on the first letter of each syllable, which to my mind is not conventional for most abbreviations in English (e.g. the mark DSW (not DSWH) for Designer Shoe Warehouse). <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>N1 Verification Standards<u></u><u></u></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><b><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></b><u></u><b> Name of Submitter<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">I do not believe we need evidence of authorization by the trademark owner of the submitter of the information. Mere entry of data into the TMC does not give any substantive rights. Rather, it is only when a Sunrise registration is sought that the ownership of the trademark becomes important. Thus, it should be easy for anyone to submit information into the TMC, but when a Sunrise regsitration is sought the applicant’s name must match the owner of record of the mark in the TMC.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">As stated by ICANN in the N1 discussion draft, “[t]he objective is to ensure that the entity <i><u>asserting the rights</u></i> is authorized by the rights holder to exercise those rights.” The mere entry of data into the TMC is not an “assertion” of rights. Rather, the only time that such rights are asserted is for a Sunrise registration, or perhaps in a URS/URDP proceeding if complainants may point to information in the TMC to support their case. In either event, the name of the party asserting the right, whether a Sunrise applicant or URS/UDRP complainant, should match the name of record of the owner of the mark in the TMC, regardless of who submitted that mark to the TMC (and perhaps regardless of who submits the Sunrise application on behalf of the mark owner if we are to allow such submissions, and why shouldn’t we as long as the name of the applicant and the name of the mark owner match?)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">If an unscrupulous third party enters another’s trademark in the TMC and then tries to rely on it for Sunrise registration purposes, the Sunrise application should be denied because the ownership/address of record for the trademark registration will be different. So trademark owners will need to be certain they have recorded any changes of ownership/address with the relevant Trademark Office and updated the TMC before claiming Sunrise rights, but I think that is better than having additional procedures in place regarding who is submitting each mark for entry into the TMC. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">If an unscrupulous third party enters the mark owner’s name and address in its Sunrise application, as well as the electronic contact information from when it originally submitted the information in the TMC, it will have essentially obtained a Sunrise registration for the mark owner, perhaps unbeknownst to the mark owner. But the registration would not be the third party’s to sell or operate. What would be the incentive for the third party to do so? Or the harm? I may be overlooking something obvious, and perhaps we would need some sort of paper notification to the mark owner (sent to the address of record in the TMC) to avoid such problems, but I am not yet convinced that expense is necessary.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><b><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></b><u></u><b> Contact Information<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Verifying the accuracy of the contact information of the submitter of information through a simple “please respond to this email” message seems reasonable, to ensure that typos of contact information do not creep into the system.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><b><span>3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></b><u></u><b> Declaration<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">The declaration should state that the information submitted “is to the best of the submitter’s knowledge believed to be true and current” and not that it “is” true and current. This change would be consistent with ICANN’s draft “declaration” for proof of use in the N2 discussion draft.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><b><span>4.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></b><u></u><b> Registration Numbers/Information<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">It should be a relatively simple matter to verify submitted registration numbers (and all other information in the registration) for those national offices that maintain electronic databases. The trickier issue is how to treat submissions for entry into the TMC for registrations from countries that do not maintain electronic databases that the TMC can easily access. It is difficult to imagine the TMC incurring the expense of employing trademark searchers to manually verify the status of each registration from such countries.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Rather than requiring a higher fee from such mark owners for such manual searches, or requiring that other mark owners subsidize the expense of manual verification, the TMC could require that all submissions for entry into the TMC from countries that do not maintain an electronic database must include a (certified?) copy of the registration. Perhaps such registrations (and maybe all registrations?) should be accompanied by a translation into one of a few specified (the six UN?) langauges that the TMC will announce it will accept, to further minimize the expense and burdens on the TMC for entering data.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">I do not recall the details of the issues with .biz and .info in this regard. It might be useful to hear from those among us with more detailed memories/experience (or from ICANN as to the particular problems encountered) so that we can learn from whatever the problems were.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><b><span>5.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></b><u></u><b> Statute/Treaty Information<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">In addition to providing a copy of the statute/treaty (plus translation if necessary, as suggested above), the submitter could provide reference to an authoritative source where the information can be verified. It would be in the submitter’s interest to provide an online resource if available to facilitate the entry of the information in the TMC. The TMC may need to hire legal staff capable of verifying rights alleged in a statute or treaty, especially if that source is not online.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><b><span>6.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></b><u></u><b> Court Information<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">ICANN’s N1 discussion draft suggests that the documentation submitted should indicate that a court has found rights in a mark in a “class for goods or services.” This should not be “class,” but rather for “certain” goods or services. Very few judicial decisions, if any, will grant rights to a mark holder for an entire “class.”<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">I also query whether the information submitted must be an order signed by a judicial officer. There does not seem to be any reason why authoritative copies of court decisions, such as are available through Lexis or from the printed West reporters in the United States, should not be sufficient. The TMC could have the right to request additional information, perhaps in the form of a signed order, if the original documentation submitted is deemed insufficiently authoritative.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><b>N1 Questions for Discussion<u></u><u></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p>
<u></u><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><u></u>Verification of contact information should not be required for each record submitted, but rather only for each new “contact record.”<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in">2-4. The verification of all information in the TMC should be relatively simple. The more complex it is, the more expensive it will be, and thus the more underutilized and unfulfilling of the promise of providing trademark owners with a meaningful way to protect their rights. Entry of information into the TMC is not itself an assertion of rights, and it should be easy to enter information, with more scrutiny given to ownership at the time rights are asserted in a Sunrise application (or URS/UDRP proceeding as permitted).<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in">The TMC record must show the name of the owner as recorded in the national trademark office, so there will be added incentive of the trademark owner to ensure that the office’s records are up-to-date. For statute/treaty and court-validated rights, if the name of the claimant is different than stated in the statute/treaty/court ruling (and there may be no named owner in a statute or treaty), then documentation establishing current ownership should be required before any rights can be asserted in a Sunrise application (or for URS/UDRP if data is used for such purposes). This documentation could be submitted at the time of submission of the information into the TMC at the mark owner’s option, and it would be to the owner’s benefit to do so, but it should not be a condition of entry as long as such ownership is verified before rights are asserted.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in">5. As noted above, rather than requiring a higher fee from such mark owners, or requiring that other mark owners subsidize the expense of manual verification, the TMC could require that all submissions for entry into the TMC from countries that do not maintain an electronic database must include a copy of the registration. Perhaps such registrations should be accompanied by a translation into one of a few langauges that the TMC will accept, to further minimize the expense and burdens on the TMC for entering data.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>N2 Verification of Proof of Use<u></u><u></u></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><b><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></b><u></u><b> Declaration<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Under 3.8 of the TMC Section of the AGB, mark holders must keep the information supplied to the TMC current. ICANN’s proposed declaration in N2 suggests that the declarant state that “if any Clearinghouse-validated mark subsequently becomes abandoned by the holder, the holder will notify the Clearinghouse within a reasonable time that the mark has been abandoned.” As I noted in my comments of January 26, this seems like a reasonable approach and is better than requiring the trademark owner to periodically update the TMC with proof of use (which would make the TMC more onerous to use). While it might be desirable to specify a time frame, the date of “abandonment” of a mark is not always so clear-cut. In addition, what constitutes “abandonment” under national trademark laws can also vary. Perhaps at a minimum a new declaration and specimen could be submitted when the TMC is updated with the new expiration of the registration when the registration is renewed at the national trademark office.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><b><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></b><u></u><b> Specimen of Use<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">The AGB actually provides two different requirements for the specimen, probably unintentionally. Specifically, Section 5.2 of the TMC Section of Module 5 states that “the mark holder <i><u>shall</u></i> be required to provide evidence of use of themark in connection with the bona fide <i><u>offering for sale</u></i> of goods or services.” By contrast, Section 1.2.6.1 of the URS Procedure merely refers to proving “use in commerce” without specifying the need for the offer for sale.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">This is an important issue, because under U.S. trademark law the offering for sale is not necessarily required to obtain a trademark registration. For example, use of a trademark on a drug in clinical trials is recognized as a legitimate use in commerce for registration purposes, even if no sales are offered. The case law is full of examples of other uses of a mark (such as for promotional giveaways, product demonstrations, charitable services offered for free, etc.) that do not constitute an “offering for sale” but nonetheless give rise to trademark rights. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">The suggestion in my comments of January 26 was that the standard should simply be whether the material “shows the mark in the bona fide promotion or offering of goods or services covered by the registration.” Perhaps this should be expanded slightly to “shows the mark in the bona fide promotion, or offering, <i><u>or sale</u></i> of goods or services covered by the registration.” I do not know if any retreat from the onerous “offering for sale” standard in the current AGB requires that the AGB itself be amended, but perhaps ICANN is making a list of issues in the AGB that need to be tweaked, and this would be one of them.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">I agree that mere inclusion of a mark in a domain name should not constitute “use,” which is consistent with U.S. trademark law.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><b>N2 Questions for Discussion<u></u><u></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><u></u>It should not be required to submit a specimen for each class or item covered by the trademark registration, but the specimen should cover at least something identified in the registration. The purpose of the “proof of use” is to show the mark is in use for at least some of the registered goods/services, and that should be enough to qualify for Sunrise registration, even if the mark is not used on all the registered goods/services.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><u></u>Trademark owners are required to keep the information in the TMC current. Thus, they will be updating the TMC as registrations are renewed. A new declaration and specimen could be submitted to the TMC when the mark owner provides the TMC with the new expiration date of the registration when the registration is renewed at the national trademark office.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u><span>3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><u></u> As noted above, ICANN’s proposed declaration in N2 suggests that the declarant state that “if any Clearinghouse-validated mark subsequently becomes abandoned by the holder, the holder will notify the Clearinghouse within a reasonable time that the mark has been abandoned.” This seems reasonable and is better than requiring the trademark owner to notify the TMC within a specific period of time, since what constitutes abandonment varies by national law.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Keith Barritt<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><img width="25" height="23" src="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=cbfc702aba&view=att&th=13541f4d99240d1d&attid=0.0.3&disp=emb&realattid=f834164b98034dd8_0.0.2&zw" alt="Description: Description: Description: http://fishnet.fr.com/C15/Marketing%20Department%20Policies/Fish%20Logos/frlogo.bmp"></span>Fish & Richardson P.C.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1425 K Street N.W.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Suite 1100<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Washington, DC 20005<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Phone: <a href="tel:%28202%29%20626-6433" value="+12026266433" target="_blank">(202) 626-6433</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fax: <a href="tel:%28202%29%20783-2331" value="+12027832331" target="_blank">(202) 783-2331</a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.fr.com" target="_blank">www.fr.com</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div>
<br>
<br><span style="font-family:courier new;Font-size:9.0pt">
****************************************************************************************************************************<br>
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
<br><br>
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any U.S. 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.(FR08-i203d)<br>
****************************************************************************************************************************
</span>
</div><br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Keith Barritt <<a href="mailto:barritt@fr.com" target="_blank">barritt@fr.com</a>><br>To: "<a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org" target="_blank">tmch-iag@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org" target="_blank">tmch-iag@icann.org</a>><br>
Cc: <br>Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:21:26 -0500<br>Subject: Keith Barritt comments on N1/N2 - TMC Authentication/Validation Standards<br>
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Below are my comments on the authentication/validation of marks in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Apologies for being a day late.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Ease of Use<u></u><u></u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I favor making the authentication/validation (is it really necessary to have two different terms?) process relatively simple. The more complex it is, the more expensive it will be, and thus the more underutilized and unfulfilling of the
promise of providing trademark owners with a meaningful way to protect their rights.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Though I am not a computer expert, I think that the entry of information (let’s not call it yet another “registration”) into the TMC might be largely automated/mechanical. We don’t want expired trademark registrations in the TMC, but beyond
that, it should be simply a reflection of exactly what is in the registration, including ownership and address information, etc., without an international army of trademark lawyers having to pore over the entries.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Ownership<u></u><u></u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If an unscrupulous third party tries to enter another’s trademark in the TMC and then “piggy-back” on it for Sunrise registration purposes, the Sunrise application should be denied because the ownership and address of record for the trademark
registration will be different. So trademark owners will need to be certain they have recorded any changes of ownership/address with the relevant Trademark Office and updated the TMC before claiming Sunrise rights, but I think that is better than having additional
authentication procedures in place regarding ownership claims for every potential entry into the TMC.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>“Word Marks”<u></u><u></u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 3.2.1 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Section of the September 19, 2011 Applicant Guidebook states that all registered “word marks” are eligible for inclusion in the TMC. The question arises as to whether this should include “merely
descriptive” marks that (in the U.S.) are registered on the Supplemental Register, or marks that also include a design component (in which case the mark might be on the Principal Register with the generic word element “disclaimed”).<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At a minimum, I believe we should not encourage Sunrise priority rights based on trademark registrations for marks that consist of solely generic word elements (plus a design). However, not all countries have similar “disclaimer” practice,
and some registrations may be granted for a “generic word + design” mark without any official indication that the word is generic. On the other hand, it seems impractical to have the TMC put in the position of evaluating whether certain terms are generic
(or descriptive) under the local language and national law of any particular trademark registration – indeed, such issues are often hotly contested.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do not recall how .biz (or was it .info?) dealt with Sunrise based on trademark registrations that had a disclaimer or were on the Supplemental Register. Is there some institutional memory among us so that we can learn from and improve
upon whatever that experience was?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Proof of Use<u></u><u></u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 5.2 of the TMC Section of the AGB states that “[a]cceptable evidence of use will be a signed declaration and a
<i><u>single specimen</u></i> of current use.” Thus, it should not be required to submit a specimen per class or per item covered by the trademark registration. The purpose of the “proof of use” is to show the mark is in use for at least some of the registered
goods/services, and that should be enough to qualify for Sunrise registration, even if the mark is not used on all the registered goods/services.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here again, the system should not be so complex that lawyers are reviewing every specimen. The standard should simply be whether the material “shows the mark in the bona fide promotion or offering of goods or servcies covered by the registration,”
supported by a declaration. While the U.S. Trademark Office would not accept promotional materials as a specimen of use for registering a mark for tangible goods (as opposed to intangible services), this is an international system and we should favor ease
of use over concern why, largely for historical reasons, the U.S. does not accept promotional materials as a specimen for goods (which is easing all the time with sales of goods over the Internet). Keeping the standard simple is also preferable considering
that the “proof of use” requirement was added late in the process without much public discussion and most of the world’s trademark laws do not have such a requirement.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Under 3.8 of the TMC Section of the AGB, mark holders must keep the information supplied to the TMC current. The model language recently supplied to us by ICANN in N2 suggests that the declaration accompanying the specimen state that “if
any Clearinghouse-validated mark subsequently becomes abandoned by the holder, the holder will notify the Clearinghouse within a reasonable time that the mark has been abandoned.” This seems like a reasonable approach and is better than requiring the trademark
owner to have to periodically update the TMC with proof of use (which would make the TMC more clunky to use). While it might be nice to specify a time frame, the date of “abandonment” of a mark is not always so clear-cut. In addition, what constitutes “abandonment”
under national trademark laws can also vary. Perhaps at a minimum a new declaration and specimen could be submitted when the TMC is updated with the new expiration of the regsitration when the registration is renewed at the national trademark office.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Keith Barritt<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><img width="25" height="23" src="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=cbfc702aba&view=att&th=13541f4d99240d1d&attid=0.0.2&disp=emb&realattid=f834164b98034dd8_0.3.0.0.1&zw" alt="Description: Description: Description: http://fishnet.fr.com/C15/Marketing%20Department%20Policies/Fish%20Logos/frlogo.bmp"></span>Fish
& Richardson P.C.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1425 K Street N.W.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Suite 1100<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Washington, DC 20005<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Phone: <a href="tel:%28202%29%20626-6433" value="+12026266433" target="_blank">(202) 626-6433</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fax: <a href="tel:%28202%29%20783-2331" value="+12027832331" target="_blank">(202) 783-2331</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.fr.com" target="_blank">www.fr.com</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
tmch-iag mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org" target="_blank">tmch-iag@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tmch-iag" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tmch-iag</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Dana Robinson,<br>Partner<br>TechLaw LLP<br>P.O. Box 1416<br>La Jolla, CA 92038<br><a href="tel:858-488-2545" value="+18584882545" target="_blank">858-488-2545</a><br>
Fax: <a href="tel:858-777-3347" value="+18587773347" target="_blank">858-777-3347</a><br><br>**** CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ***** CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION *****<br>
<br>This e-mail transmission and any attachments contain confidential information from attorney Dana Robinson and/or TechLaw LLP, which may be protected by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy or use this information. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message.<br>
IRS Circular 230 Legend: If any advice concerning U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication or attachments, such advice is not intended to be used and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.<br>
<br>
</div>