[gnso-rpm-wg] PDDRP topics -- limitation period to bring a PDDRP

[George Kirikos]

Steve brings up (indirectly) an interesting topic, namely that there is no
"mutual jurisdiction" clause to the PDDRP (21.3 only says a "court of
competent jurisdiction"). If a complaint (or appeal) was brought by one
side in a jurisdiction that the other side doesn't accept, how would it be
resolved?

Obviously it would have to be resolved by the court in which the law suit
was brought (i.e as a defense to the action) and/or some other "superior"
jurisdiction. [Perhaps some of the registrars, who have similar "court of
competent jurisdiction" language in their registrar agreements might want
to chime in......I hope that Tucows, for example, would ignore any orders
from a Turkish or Iranian court for a Canadian or US-based registrant who
obeys Canadian/US laws.]

So, if we modified the time limit in the manner he suggests, we have to be
very careful to phrase things in such a manner as to not assume that a
certain jurisdiction's time limits would actually apply. i.e. the location
of the registry operator would definitely be a valid jurisdiction to bring
an action against them. The preferred location of the TM holder / PDDRP
complainant may or may not be a valid jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

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


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Steve Levy <slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
wrote:

> George,
>
> I understand the foundation of your idea - that parties should not have
> greater rights through the PDDRP than they would in a court of law.  But,
> by the same token, they shouldn't have lesser rights either.
>
> As such, I suggest revising your recommendation so that any time limit for
> bringing a PDDRP claim would be the longer of the applicable statute of
> limitations for such a claim in the complainant’s or respondent's
>  jurisdictions if such claim were to have been brought in the courts.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> Steven M. Levy, Esq.
>
> *Accent Law Group, Inc.*
> 301 Fulton St.
> Philadelphia, PA 19147
>
> United States
>
> Phone: +1-215-327-9094
> Email: slevy at AccentLawGroup.com <slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
>
> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
>
> <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>LinkedIn:
> www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/
> ________________________________________
> Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information
> that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other
> privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed
> only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this
> communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the
> intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended
> recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly
> delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in
> any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or
> reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may
> be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not
> a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
>
>
>
> On 7/20/16, 1:49 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of George
> Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I don't think this was brought up before yet in the context of the
> PDDRP, but perhaps it can be added to the list of topics.
>
> It would be very odd if complainants were allowed to bring a PDDRP for
> a matter that was not able to be brought by them in a court of law,
> because it was barred by the relevant statute of limitations. I think
> amending the PDDRP to explicitly add a time limit for bringing a PDDRP
> would make sense, to handle this situation. 2 years would be a
> suitable limit, in my opinion, and would help ensure that complaints
> are brought in a timely fashion.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160720/f508719a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Accent Law Logo NEW Very Small[4].png
Type: image/png
Size: 17053 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160720/f508719a/AccentLawLogoNEWVerySmall4-0001.png>