[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Straw Poll: Whether the UNITAID decision procedural roadmap fulfills this PDP's mandate?

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Fri Dec 12 12:58:42 UTC 2014


Sorry, the link to the WIPO decision was bad. It's actually at;

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922

Also,  there might be a valid concern that I'm relying upon only one
WIPO decision (there haven't been too many involving IGOs to begin
with!). So, I searched the WIPO Overview 2.0, and found a section
which is on point, and appears to support the UNITAID approach, see:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/#18

1.8 Can a trademark licensee or a related company to a trademark
holder have rights in a trademark for the purpose of filing a UDRP
case?

Consensus view: In most circumstances, a licensee of a trademark or a
related company such as a subsidiary or parent to the registered
holder of a trademark is considered to have rights in a trademark
under the UDRP. For the purpose of filing under the UDRP, evidence of
such license and/or authorization of the principal trademark holder to
the bringing of the UDRP complaint would tend to support such a
finding. Panels have in certain cases been prepared to infer the
existence of a license and/or authorization from the particular facts,
but in general, relevant evidence is desirable. Although not a
requirement, panels have on occasion found it helpful, where a
complaint relies on a common source of trademark rights, for all
relevant rights holders to be included as co-complainants.

It's not exactly the same (a licensee vs. an authorized proxy
registrant of the mark), but it's similar in nature.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/


More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list