[GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12

Paul Keating Paul at law.es
Wed Oct 17 12:21:42 UTC 2018


Phil,  you cannot disavow everything you wrote as not having a link to you and your views.

George,  You cannot keep pulling out every comment someone makes in the past as a fact for how that person now believe.

Paul
.

On 10/17/18, 12:12 AM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:

    While noting that you have recently developed an interest in advocacy articles I penned years ago on behalf of the ICA, I must state once again that they articulated positions and views taken by its Board at that time and should not be presumed to represent my current personal positions or views, or those of my current employer.
    
    Philip S. Corwin
    Policy Counsel
    VeriSign, Inc.
    12061 Bluemont Way
    Reston, VA 20190
    703-948-4648/Direct
    571-342-7489/Cell
    
    "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
    Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:55 PM
    To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
    Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12
    
    P.S. Phil Corwin's comment on the LegalSupply.com UDRP (on that blog):
    
    "If anyone was squatting here it looks like elegalsupply.com, which sure looks confusingly similar to the previously registered legalsupply.com.
    
    If broadly adopted, this principle — “The transfer of a domain name is equivalent to a new registration under the UDRP” — means a permanent reduction in the value of all non-infringing generic domains. It means that your preexisting domain rights are subordinate to a later registered trademark that is identical or confusingly similar. That devalues the domain as a marketable asset because if you sell it to someone else they are susceptible to a UDRP filed by the trademark-based squatter.
    
    As for this part of the examiner’s findings — “Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs.” — So what? The purchaser acquired a non-infringing asset, and the mere fact that its ownership was transferred between two parties should not alter its non-infringing nature. Since when is the hope that a legally acquired and legaly compliant asset may later be sold for additional value proof of anything except smart investment? Is the UDRP opposed to lawful profit?
    
    This should not be allowed to stand."
    
    Sincerely,
    
    George Kirikos
    416-588-0269
    http://www.leap.com/
    
    
    
    
    
    On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 5:45 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
    > Any deviation from the law simply means there will be more litigation 
    > in the courts, not less litigation, increasing expenses for all 
    > concerned.
    >
    > To give an example of a real domain dispute that has been "caught" by 
    > the current interpretation, consider LegalSupply.com:
    >
    > http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1438796.htm
    > https://www.thedomains.com/2012/05/24/legalsupply-com-lost-to-elegalsu
    > pply-com-the-transfer-of-a-domain-is-equivalent-to-a-new-registration/
    >
    > Complainant registers a "worthless" TM for "eLegalSupply.com" long 
    > after the LegalSupply.com domain name is created. Domain name changes 
    > hands, and then the owner of the worthless "eLegalSupply.com goes for 
    > the "domain upgrade" via UDRP. And they win the UDRP, demonstrating 
    > how companies are exploiting the current incorrect interpretation (see 
    > the blog post for the reaction).
    >
    > This is the state of the UDRP today, and it must change.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    >
    > George Kirikos
    > 416-588-0269
    > http://www.leap.com/
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
    >> At best, what we have here with Hise and Schmidheiny is a split 
    >> between the circuits.  Hise is not more correct simply because it was decided later.
    >> And Schmidheiny is not less correct because Hise disagreed with it.
    >>
    >> To the extent there’s any ambiguity here, the simpler solution would 
    >> be to clarify once and for all that re-registration is registration.  
    >> This would be “perfectly aligned” with Schmidheiny and past practice 
    >> with regard to domain names.  All in all, an objectively better result.
    >>
    >> An even simpler solution would be to eliminate the registration prong 
    >> entirely.  Any purported ambiguities around “registration” or “creation”
    >> would be irrelevant and panels could focus on determining the actions 
    >> of the domain name owner, without needing to look back at the one or 
    >> another point in history.
    >>
    >> Both of these alternatives should be stated for consideration if this 
    >> proposal proceeds to publication.
    >>
    >> Briefly, on other points.  Those SEC filings were just more 
    >> agreements, so all that I said (and Gerald said) about that point 
    >> still stands.  Domain names are not IP.  And the many “rationales” 
    >> predicated on the idea that domain names are IP must be dismissed as based on a false premise.
    >>
    >> The language quoted from ACPA does not magically turn it from 
    >> disjunctive to conjunctive.  It does not change “or” to “and.”  ACPA 
    >> is still disjunctive — critical in terms of the elements of proof under both regimes.
    >>
    >> The Proposal seeks to exploit a claimed ambiguity to create a class 
    >> of “immunized” domain names that can be used by anyone at any time in 
    >> even the most flagrant abusive fashion without fear of a UDRP 
    >> proceeding, simply because their initial registration was not in bad 
    >> faith.  These weaponized domains would be more attractive to 
    >> malfeasors, thus creating added value for the registrant —  the windfall referred to earlier.
    >>
    >> There’s no need to respond in more detail, given the detailed 
    >> responses from Georges, Gerald, Brian and Scott, with which I agree.  
    >> In particular I agree that panelists originally and repeatedly have 
    >> gotten this right, as did Schmidheiny, and this was never an “error” 
    >> or a “mistake.”  Hise is the outlier, as was the Voyuer case, which 
    >> did not actually examine the issue since the Complainant was found 
    >> not to have a trademark (so the issue of registration date was essentially moot).
    >>
    >> I also agree that, even with the “low bar” for publication of 
    >> submissions, this is one that should not be put forward.
    >>
    >> Best regards,
    >>
    >> Greg
    >>
    >>
    >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:57 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Hi Scott,
    >>>
    >>> Responding to the issues you raised in order:
    >>>
    >>> 1.A. Not going to get into the whole "who is a registrant" issue, 
    >>> given the GDPR. Certainly we all understand that affects all 
    >>> disputes, and is not limited to my proposal.
    >>> 1.B. Creation date is visible in WHOIS, e.g. for EXAMPLE.COM it's at:
    >>>
    >>> https://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=example.com&type=do
    >>> main
    >>>
    >>> Creation Date: 1995-08-14T04:00:00Z
    >>>
    >>> for Math.com it is at:
    >>> https://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=math.com&type=domai
    >>> n
    >>>
    >>> Creation Date: 1998-09-10T04:00:00Z
    >>>
    >>> This is not open to interpretation/misinterpretation like 
    >>> "Registration Date"
    >>>
    >>> 1.C. Transfer dates are not stored in WHOIS currently, for 
    >>> *existing* disputes (where transfer of ownership is claimed as the new date).
    >>> Folks who respond can document things accordingly. Or, heck, 
    >>> complainants can send a C&D first, actually reach out to the domain 
    >>> owner, instead of using UDRP as a *first* resort. WHOIS history at 
    >>> places like DomainTools can also be used to guess at these dates, as 
    >>> is done today. The "years of precedent" that you point to were all 
    >>> wrongly decided, as the Gopets decision demonstrates.
    >>>
    >>> 2. Use is an entirely separate part of the 3rd prong of bad faith.
    >>>
    >>> 3. Whether or not domain names are "intellectual property" doesn't 
    >>> affect the proposal. See GoPets or Voyuer.com, i.e. how a 
    >>> successor-in-interest is passed *all* the rights of the predecessor, 
    >>> including priority rights. Also, a domain name right doesn't need to 
    >>> be linked to trademark rights to still be considered IP. Take a look 
    >>> at copyrights that can't be TMs. Yet copyrights are still IP (a 
    >>> different type of IP).
    >>>
    >>> 4. You can use the courts, to go after *use* in bad faith (as you 
    >>> can today, even for domains that are not registered in bad faith faith).
    >>> Your remedies would be different (e.g. not necessarily transfer of 
    >>> the domain name, but ordering the registrant to cease the infringing use).
    >>> Furthermore, you can still go after obviously-malicious domains that 
    >>> are never used early, if they have no conceivably good faith use, 
    >>> today. e.g. google-registration-2018.horse need not be used at all, 
    >>> to lose a UDRP/URS.
    >>>
    >>> 5. You seem to be very critical of the courts. Which specific 
    >>> national courts do you have a problem with? Canada? USA? UK? France? China?
    >>> Japan? Here's a list of all the countries that have registrars (for 
    >>> "mutual jurisdiction" purposes):
    >>>
    >>> https://www.internic.net/origin.html
    >>>
    >>> Tell me which ones are "rogue" in your eyes.
    >>>
    >>> What's funny is that often the same folks who are critical of 
    >>> national courts are entirely uncritical when asked "Which nation's 
    >>> TMs should be barred from the TMCH?" There, the answer is "A TM is a TM is a TM"
    >>> and that if one has a problem with that TM, take it up with "the 
    >>> courts"!! (e.g. all the dubious TMs being used in the sunrise period 
    >>> to game the system)
    >>>
    >>> Sincerely,
    >>>
    >>> George Kirikos
    >>> 416-588-0269
    >>> http://www.leap.com/
    >>>
    >>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Scott Austin 
    >>> <SAustin at vlplawgroup.com>
    >>> wrote:
    >>> > George:
    >>> > Thanks for the update. Per Brian's reality check I see the 
    >>> > following showstopper issues (for me anyway) and do not support 
    >>> > the proposal on these
    >>> > grounds:
    >>> > 1. Text of proposal creates, not clarifies ambiguity.
    >>> > The URS and UDRP policies shall be changed to require that 
    >>> > complainants (excluding prior registrants of the domain name) 
    >>> > prove that a domain name was created in bad faith (with the 
    >>> > creation date of the domain name being the relevant date), 
    >>> > replacing the current ambiguous registered in bad faith standard. 
    >>> > In the event that a prior registrant of the domain name brings a 
    >>> > dispute as complainant, they instead need only prove that a domain 
    >>> > name was acquired in bad faith (with the acquisition date of the 
    >>> > domain name by the current registrant being the relevant date). 
    >>> > All other remaining prongs of the 3-part test shall continue as 
    >>> > before (e.g. use in bad faith, no legitimate interest, confusingly 
    >>> > similar to a TM).
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> > “Prior registrants” - in this instance you refer to registrant but 
    >>> > you dismiss the term registered as ambiguous. Yet one becomes a 
    >>> > registrant by registering a domain name on a date certain. However 
    >>> > where do you look online (especially after GDPR) to confirm 
    >>> > someone is a "prior registrant"?
    >>> > There is no grantor/grantee deed index at the local county 
    >>> > recorder office that publicly discloses not only the current 
    >>> > registrant, but each registrant prior to the current one where a 
    >>> > change in ownership has occurred. And what is to preclude an 
    >>> > original registrant from using an alias or dba and just changing 
    >>> > ownership in the underlying “original” registrant organization.
    >>> > None of ownership data is authenticated or policed, except at the 
    >>> > credit card swipe stage. Maybe creation should be tied and 
    >>> > displayed based on that.
    >>> > “creation” and “creation date” – how is this more accurate than 
    >>> > “registration date or initial registration date. Is creation an 
    >>> > earlier moment, when the domain is approved in a board room, 
    >>> > purchased by a promoter to be assigned to the company that will 
    >>> > use it, requested? Searched for availability on whois? I could 
    >>> > make a case filled with unique time consuming fact and 
    >>> > circumstance checking that each one of those stages in the 
    >>> > decision to acquire and use a domain was its “creation”. And why 
    >>> > the carve out for prior registrants? Why not prior creators if 
    >>> > that is the operative term.
    >>> > It
    >>> > doesn’t work.
    >>> > “Acquisition Date” – is this a date stated in a contract that a 
    >>> > complainant can’t find. Registration date is the only date in 
    >>> > whois that is available.
    >>> > This would undo or compromise years of precedent based on 
    >>> > registration date and again creates the ambiguity of what 
    >>> > circumstances demonstrate acquired and how do you investigate 
    >>> > that. Unacceptable and no evidence this improves upon the status 
    >>> > quo in clarity or effectiveness for intended purpose.
    >>> >
    >>> > And what about use – is this part of creation? Does your proposal 
    >>> > open the door to the fatal disjunctive “registered or used” in bad 
    >>> > faith, perceived as the death knell to the secondary market for 
    >>> > domain names. Be careful what you wish for. I don’t see use 
    >>> > mentioned anywhere in your proposal text, but see point E below.
    >>> > Domains as intellectual property. This is the biggest problem I 
    >>> > have with your insistence that all domain names are created 
    >>> > equally.  What about generic.com? Is a domain that cannot acquire 
    >>> > trademark rights intellectual property? Sounds like merely what it 
    >>> > is: a URL address licensed to a user by a registrar that 
    >>> > conveniently converts machine readable numbers to text readable 
    >>> > and more easily remembered by humans. Without your infusions of 
    >>> > contract or trademark use this does not clearly fall under the 
    >>> > category of IP and your argument fails.  As other’s have pointed 
    >>> > out you frame your argument by conveniently using examples of 
    >>> > domain names infused with intellectual property rights, either 1) 
    >>> > by defining domain names as such in an agreement which in context 
    >>> > could have added URLs or website addresses or maybe something more 
    >>> > remote as long as agreed to by the parties; or 2) a “domain like” 
    >>> > name comprised in part of an unregistered trademark term used as a 
    >>> > component of a registered words plus design mark in a stylized 
    >>> > font with a slogan. The slogan is a marketing device for an IP 
    >>> > firm, not law or a ruling on domain names as intellectual 
    >>> > property.
    >>> > If a string of serial domain acquisitions has renders the final 
    >>> > successor beyond bad faith no matter how maliciously they use 
    >>> > their purchased domain registration, what is the intent? Is the 
    >>> > intent that domains like sleeper cells can be stockpiled in the 
    >>> > thousands without use, so they do not come to the attention of 
    >>> > rightsholders, which would first target use of a domain to support 
    >>> > a phishing site or infringing site or even a parking site 
    >>> > incorporating a deceptive misspelling of a trademark. Thus flying 
    >>> > under the radar until sufficient repurchase and time elapse while 
    >>> > they appear innocuous, they pass a date (your affiliated proposal 
    >>> > suggests 2 years I
    >>> > believe) after which they can be sold on a secondary domain market 
    >>> > to a successor registrant who now can spring into being putting a 
    >>> > full blown phishing site, counterfeit site of the rights holder’s 
    >>> > mark without worry of a summary proceeding as it is time barred or 
    >>> > bad faith only applies to the initial registrant present at 
    >>> > “creation” who financed the “sleeper period” but now can sell 
    >>> > their vintage protected incontestable domains at a premium.
    >>> > But that’s not all. What your proposal’s Complainant/Respondent or 
    >>> > rightsholder/disputed registrant two-dimensional approach fails to 
    >>> > consider is that trademark rights are 3 dimensional. The trademark 
    >>> > act in the US at least and I would venture most countries is a 
    >>> > consumer protection act.
    >>> > You’ve left out consumers.  Why should consumers, those folks that 
    >>> > TM and Circle R were “created” to protect from passed off inferior 
    >>> > goods or services be subjected to confusion under your proposal 
    >>> > because a rightsholder waited too long to protect its rights, or 
    >>> > failed to get to a particular domain until it had changed hands 
    >>> > multiple times while they used their limited resources to chase 
    >>> > the most blatant offenders.  There is no evidence that the benefit 
    >>> > to registrants afforded by your proposal outweighs the cost to 
    >>> > rightsholders AND the consuming public. You have made it clear for 
    >>> > some unsubstantiated, unproven reason the you want to make it hard 
    >>> > for rightsholders to protect their marks and consumers, or 
    >>> > eliminate summary proceedings altogether, forcing rightholders to 
    >>> > march into court in distant regions of the globe, in jurisdictions 
    >>> > where courts may take years to hear a case or may not recognize 
    >>> > the same luxuries of due process and review, shortened statutes of 
    >>> > limitations, lack technical understanding, etc.
    >>> > This
    >>> > would be the case already with many ccTLDs. The prize here appears 
    >>> > to be taking away from rightsholders well-established protections 
    >>> > that apply to the most valuable TLD - .com. For the foregoing 
    >>> > reasons, George, I object to and do not support proposal 12.
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> > Best regards,
    >>> > Scott
    >>> >
    >>> > Please click below to  use my booking calendar to schedule:
    >>> >   a 15-minute call    a 30-minute call    a 60-minute call
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> > Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | 
    >>> > VLP Law Group LLP
    >>> > 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
    >>> > Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | 
    >>> > SAustin at VLPLawGroup.com
    >>> >
    >>> > -----Original Message-----
    >>> > From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of 
    >>> > George Kirikos
    >>> > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 12:55 PM
    >>> > To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>; Ariel Liang 
    >>> > <ariel.liang at icann.org>
    >>> > Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12
    >>> >
    >>> > Hi again,
    >>> >
    >>> > Attached is the updated revised version of URS Proposal #12, 
    >>> > simply adding the Gopets v. Hise case citation in section #8. 
    >>> > Thanks to Brian for his "strong objection", otherwise I wouldn't 
    >>> > have remembered that there was case law to show that this proposal 
    >>> > would align the UDRP with the law.
    >>> >
    >>> > Sincerely,
    >>> >
    >>> > George Kirikos
    >>> > 416-588-0269
    >>> >
    >>> > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f
    >>> > &c=E,1,zxbn2tiatvkzhTWqLCBws9UpWsXQfALYuHFBkumURXOj2rNgWiHDb5SMRHa
    >>> > pRED2kjZosRrEKzbsY9tcDWr5CcimUjT0IDk9PVjMk-qYCiPPPXI,&typo=1
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
    >>> >> Hi Brian:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> I refer you to the following case in the California courts, that 
    >>> >> referenced this exact topic:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> GOPETS v. Hise,
    >>> >>
    >>> >> http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/09/22/08-5611
    >>> >> 0.pdf
    >>> >>
    >>> >> (also listed on the WIPO Website at:
    >>> >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2
    >>> >> fexpo 
    >>> >> rt%2fsites%2fwww%2famc%2fen%2fdocs%2fd20060636circuitdecision.pdf
    >>> >> &c=E, 
    >>> >> 1,Zv_K5R1ftgPNTQiVMR_bC87QMECSVRKnYtZUp7s19bYEZH7pyDxPmrrOvZN6ZlD
    >>> >> S9FKm
    >>> >> TiTxL85qJLS83LA35hYYYZF8-y0WVrn51dOwmgcDmr41b_c,&typo=1
    >>> >> linked from
    >>> >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2
    >>> >> famc% 
    >>> >> 2fen%2fdomains%2fchallenged%2f&c=E,1,gY1N97-hyy-P1Z5o-hqKcm3Ev6O-
    >>> >> wEnMX 
    >>> >> K3X-J_odUWYxGSzItAGVRQrpZrjfHSUXXwaVvftXV_forYiX6DTYDuIAL5QM5UbZG
    >>> >> RZmkF
    >>> >> f72p4SA,,&typo=1  )
    >>> >>
    >>> >> “”The primary question before us is whether the term “registration”
    >>> >> applies only to the initial registration of the domain name, or 
    >>> >> whether it also applies to a re-registration of a currently 
    >>> >> registered domain name by a new registrant. We hold that such 
    >>> >> re-registration is not a “registration” within the meaning of § 1125(d)(1).”"
    >>> >>
    >>> >> [5] Like the text of § 8131(1)(A), the text of § 1125(d)(1) 
    >>> >> considered in isolation does not answer the question whether “registration”
    >>> >> includes re-registration. Looking at ACPA in light of traditional 
    >>> >> property law, however, we conclude that Congress meant “registration”
    >>> >> to refer only to the initial registration. It is undisputed that 
    >>> >> Edward Hise could have retained all of his rights to
    >>> >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fgopets.com&c=
    >>> >> E,1,- 
    >>> >> VgBFYawV9wu9qv-RzSR6QGGiHEe8kEPwnaf4eVwHmF83L-LceMWXH7w_BufTEzBgm
    >>> >> yTqVb
    >>> >> PGpeXPqQRX8e1sL405GqpLLfW5D6FlfnUebdsGCTO_nI,&typo=1
    >>> >> indefinitely if he had main-
    >>> >> tained the registration of the domain name in his own name. 
    >>> >> *****We see no basis in ACPA to conclude that a right that 
    >>> >> belongs to an initial registrant of a currently registered domain 
    >>> >> name is lost when that name is transferred to another owner. The 
    >>> >> general rule is that a property owner may sell all of the rights 
    >>> >> he holds in property.**** GoPets Ltd.’s proposed rule would make 
    >>> >> rights to many domain names effectively inalienable, whether the 
    >>> >> alienation is by gift, inheritance, sale, or other form of 
    >>> >> transfer. Nothing in the text or structure of the statute indi- 
    >>> >> cates that Congress intended that rights in domain names should be inalienable.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> [6] We therefore hold that Digital Overture’s re-registration of
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fgopets.com&c=
    >>> >> E,1,DF99RAI3ybmbOz_-PzuqFMbtBZxMird3X0lJuuBFBWtKjN6IZR7cxhqozpRUu
    >>> >> NmZ6EoYyudU-jXFUy4RHpf70psnP--oxffVLFx8UXhZA5rUXw,,&typo=1
    >>> >> was not a registration within the meaning of § 1125(d)(1).
    >>> >> Because Edward Hise registered
    >>> >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fgopets.com&c=
    >>> >> E,1,5
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >> JfuZSC5tr8d1NGTRclG7SA5HCEZEhyUmxBmgSJCj4PXlEA01vhXIu9EVO_ENPhLeH
    >>> >> 4_zPIrZuAoMsg9-D0TQnIl7prICFDUhaVndrR_bcGdG5mg&typo=1
    >>> >> in 1999, long before GoPets Ltd. registered its service mark, 
    >>> >> Digital Overture’s re-registration and continued ownership of
    >>> >>
    >>> >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fgopets.com&c=
    >>> >> E,1,7pUeaPOYFpJL-G1dy4FHDNn4hOhKtBkTqZ6LNuK29a7LdNCY6CsvwYQ0Co-HI
    >>> >> r8XKEH7rRwb_sQGBvhY5xGnOjo8Svxm2Fm5LGARyFhnjpGkH3LP2w,,&typo=1
    >>> >> does not violate § 1125(d)(1).
    >>> >>
    >>> >> There you have it. Have WIPO panels been observing this court 
    >>> >> precedent? Has WIPO updated their "WIPO Views"? Of course not, 
    >>> >> even though it's been published on WIPO's own website! Perhaps 
    >>> >> WIPO will take steps to remove that case from their website, just 
    >>> >> like they removed the PUPA.COM case involving my company??
    >>> >>
    >>> >> It's time to remove the ambiguity once and for all, and my 
    >>> >> proposal does just that, and furthermore aligns it with court 
    >>> >> precedent and common sense. I probably should have added this 
    >>> >> case to my revised proposal. I'll do that shortly, and send it again.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Sincerely,
    >>> >>
    >>> >> George Kirikos
    >>> >> 416-588-0269
    >>> >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2
    >>> >> f&c=E 
    >>> >> ,1,6SO43nms3azu6w2FDDcjjOwLnUDLMqH8Z2fNCiOWXeSHJf1IOdbm13c7jIhwFa
    >>> >> SCI8Y
    >>> >> y9ymQjmKdiDXPO4BXpuLrxUkJTeqAWXWt0JHnDcGA_zkbTg,,&typo=1
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:13 PM, BECKHAM, Brian 
    >>> >> <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
    >>> >> wrote:
    >>> >>> Speaking in my non-chair capacity, and mindful of the "low bar" 
    >>> >>> that has been set for inclusion in the Initial Report, I would 
    >>> >>> like to register the strongest of objections to this proposal.
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> Not only would it give carte blanche to later-acquiring 
    >>> >>> registrants to infringe a complainant's mark, but moreover, the 
    >>> >>> claimed ambiguity blatantly mischaracterizes panel consensus 
    >>> >>> described in the WIPO Overview, which does not reflect any 
    >>> >>> "ambiguity" in how panels assess the applicable registration 
    >>> >>> date.
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> Perhaps one or two panelists or counsel who are members of this 
    >>> >>> WG could add their views.
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> Brian
    >>> >>> ________________________________________
    >>> >>> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of 
    >>> >>> George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
    >>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:35 PM
    >>> >>> To: gnso-rpm-wg; Ariel Liang
    >>> >>> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> [re-sending from my correct email address]
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> Hi folks,
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> Attached is the revised version of URS Proposal #12, after 
    >>> >>> discussions with Rebecca on how to handle the unintended 
    >>> >>> consequences she identified in the original proposal. Many 
    >>> >>> thanks to Rebecca for identifying the issue and the solution.
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> Sincerely,
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> George Kirikos
    >>> >>> 416-588-0269
    >>> >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%
    >>> >>> 2f&c= 
    >>> >>> E,1,odex5M2U4U5zyFqLlSBUNNjAReeUc74WjuV6TUe9H1I6Hc4cYo2XGYHt5kUG
    >>> >>> AMCks
    >>> >>> 8t15KdME-B164MaOXo9-Gk-I72usQuOYvPYq8W60a4NlX9aQo-o&typo=1
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> 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.
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> > This message contains information which may be confidential and 
    >>> > legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, 
    >>> > copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information 
    >>> > contained in the message. If you have received this message in 
    >>> > error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax 
    >>> > advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to 
    >>> > avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
    >>> _______________________________________________
    >>> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
    >>> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
    >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
    _______________________________________________
    GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
    GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
    https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
    _______________________________________________
    GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
    GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
    https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg




More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list