[GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH

Sun Oct 13 00:24:25 UTC 2019

I agree with Claudio.

Hector 

Héctor Ariel Manoff
Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen
Viamonte 1145 10º Piso
C1053ABW Buenos Aires
República Argentina
Te: (54-11) 4371-6100
Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365
E-mail:  <mailto:amanoff at vmf.com.ar> amanoff at vmf.com.ar
Web:  <http://www.vmf.com.ar/> http://www.vmf.com.ar

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

Esta comunicación tiene como destinatario a la persona o empresa a la cual está dirigida y puede contener información confidencial y reservada. Si el lector de este mensaje no es el destinatario o sus empleados o representantes, deberá proceder a reenviar el presente a su remitente. La distribución, diseminación o copiado de este mensaje podría constituir violación a la ley. Gracias.

This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. Thank you.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

De: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de claudio di gangi
Enviado el: sábado, 12 de octubre de 2019 18:57
Para: Paul Keating
CC: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Asunto: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH

Michael, Rebecca, Jason, all

I think Marie and Greg have done a great job explaining the views of IP owners, along with the nature and type of harms that are at risk. 

I am supplementing their response to address some of the other issues or questions

raised by Michael, Rebecca, and Jason, and to suggest a path forward that may be capable of reaching consensus.

The Rules of the Original TMCH Proposal Did Not Change During Implementation to Create a "Secret" Database

In terms of the 'original intent' question that Jason raised, I previously served the ICANN committee (the Implementation Recommendation Team) that developed the original proposal and recommendation for an IP Clearinghouse (the name of which was later changed to TMCH); I can assure you that the intent from the very beginning was for TMCH data to remain confidential. 

To demonstrate this point, the following language appears in the Final IRT Report:

"Access to and use of such data must be restricted to trademark owners (who will be permitted to access and use only their own data), ICANN, new gTLD registries and registrars, for the sole purpose of performing the data validation functions for new gTLD registries and the implementation of RPMs, e.g., in relation to...[TM Claims etc.]. Ownership of any and all data submitted to or generated by the IP Clearinghouse must remain exclusively with the entity providing such data."

The concept of having a database where these assets are left out in the open for third-parties, including criminals (or even competitors), to access the proprietary data, would never have gotten off the ground within the IP community to provide the support needed to obtain the adoption of the TMCH by ICANN in the first instance.

The issues we are discussing now (regarding confidentiality of TMCH data) are not new, and were identified and discussed during the implementation phase of the new gTLD program.

But there was never a period of time when the "status quo" (as expressed in the various draft Applicant Guidebook(s)) included an open TMCH where trademark data was freely accessible. While these issue were contemplated, there was never sufficient traction for this concept to be incorporated into the official rule-making, so there wasn't a big switch behind the scenes at the 11th hour.

Distinction Between Searching National Trademark Office Databases and the TMCH

The TMCH is a proprietary database which houses some of the most valuable and important assets that organizations own. This is the underlying basis for the need of confidential treatment of the associated data elements. 

There are now over 45,000 trademark records recorded in the TMCH; without confidentiality, there would never be the current level of TMCH adoption by the IP community.

If the TMCH data was not confidential, the targeted, aggregation of this data could be used to identify jurisdictions in which the rights holder may not have registered its trademarks or in which it has not chosen to defensively register domain names. It would also expose gaps in IP protection strategies because it would reflect which trademarks may be considered more valuable than others in terms of online brand protection, or on the other end of the spectrum, may expose competitive intelligence. 

Since the TMCH is a unique and proprietary database, the risk exposure relates to the aggregation of trademark data for a specific purpose, e.g. to protect brands in the DNS through the TMCH. A similar level of inference can not be gained by simply searching the national trademark office databases. 

And we know that having this level of inference about IP owners online brand strategies can be leveraged to further criminal activity, such as counterfeiting and DNS abuse (phishing attacks, etc.). 

So these factors, which lay at the very foundational design of the TMCH, are the primary distinctions between the trademark data that is available in the various public searchable national trademark office databases and the targeted, aggregated data held by the TMCH for the purpose of online brand protection.

Using TM Claims to Misuse and Mine TMCH Data

I do not find the recent question that Michael raised concerning the misuse of data access, e.g. "data mining", to be a valid argument for transparency. 

To be clear, I am not saying there are not valid arguments for transparency, but I am referring to the practice of mining the database for the purpose of obtaining confidential data. 

Accordingly, the TMCH should be structured in a manner that minimizes data mining of trademark registration patterns. I haven't dug into the contracts as of yet, but there should be contractual safeguards (either within the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), or the Registry Agreement (RA)), to ensure that TMCH data is not mined and to provide enforcement against abuse of access. 

The justification of confidentiality is based on the concept of minimizing abuse of data, so that the distribution of data is limited to situations where the data is needed to implement TMCH functionality, including for technical reasons, e.g. uptime/availability. The WG should consider putting forward a recommendation if sufficient enforceable safeguards against data mining do not already exist.

Paradigm for Building Consensus

Based on the concerns that Rebecca, Michael, and Jason have articulated, I believe the appropriate venue to address those concerns are the dispute resolution procedures at the Registry-level, including the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP). 

For example, Greg has recently submitted a proposal (in relation to the design marks topic) that sets forth a new ground, (e.g. the trademark mark was obtained in a pre-textual manner) upon which to bring a complaint under the SDRP policy. 

On our last call I extended an olive branch to Michael to work on developing additional solutions. Rebecca and I recently successfully engaged in such an exercise to help build consensus on the TMCH. 

I'm not sure if it helps you feel any better, but my previous proposal to provide transparency on Reserved Names, was not adopted because of a similar confidentiality issue. So in conclusion, I encourage you to accept my offer to work together to develop solutions that have a better potential to reach consensus.

Cheers,

Claudio

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:36 PM Paul Keating <paul at law.es> wrote:

Marie,

Regarding defensible arguments:

Because while it's very easy to find out whether a particular word (or a dataset of 50 or 100 words) is in the TMCH, it's impossible to see the totality of words included in the TMCH. This prevents effective oversight - as we've run into time and again in discussing the extent of registrations of GIs, the extent of registrations of design marks, etc. It's only easy to search when you know specifically what you're looking for.

Sent while on the run.

On 11 Oct 2019, at 20:37, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be> wrote:

I appreciate the replies, but have laid out a straightforward, fact-based "defensible and realistic argument for the harm that would result from transparency", while I don't believe I've seen fact-based arguments as to the purported harm that transparency would solve.
I wish you all a great evening,
Marie

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 9:15 PM
To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
Cc: Jason Schaeffer <jason at esqwire.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH

Because while it's very easy to find out whether a particular word (or a dataset of 50 or 100 words) is in the TMCH, it's impossible to see the totality of words included in the TMCH. This prevents effective oversight - as we've run into time and again in discussing the extent of registrations of GIs, the extent of registrations of design marks, etc. It's only easy to search when you know specifically what you're looking for.

And while I understand your perspective is different... I feel like at some point you need to make a defensible and realistic argument for the harm that would result from transparency, since the brand strategy information you mention is already, essentially, publicly available.

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 3:01 PM Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Michael.
> If it is as easy as you say, then what purpose would a public TMCH serve?
> As for your suspicion, while of course I cannot speak for you, I can for me: that it absolutely not the case.
> And Paul, at the risk of simply quoting you: nothing in your comments moves the needle of the opposition for us either. That's the joy of a debate between people with different perspectives.
> Best to all,
> Marie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 8:49 PM
> To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
> Cc: Jason Schaeffer <jason at esqwire.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH
>
> Hi Marie,
>
> The problem with the claim of commercial harm as you frame it here is that it is trivially easy to find out which marks from a particular portfolio are registered in the TMCH through trial and error. As you mention - the totality of the portfolio is publicly available. So if you have that dataset, it's pretty simple to just search for each word and see when a trademark claim notification pops up (indeed - this is how journalists found all those generic words). So any interested party who wanted to find out about a company's "commercial/enforcement strategy" could just spend an hour or two searching for each registered mark, and get the complete picture.
>
> I think that's the reason why Jason painted the elaborate scenario he did, is because many of us are wracking our brains trying to find out how there's a legitimate confidentiality interest when this information is available to anyone who cares to look. It's good to know that the scenario he mentioned hasn't come up... but if that's the case it begs the question as to what the basis of your opposition is, given that the strategic information you refer to is already available to anyone who spends a couple of hours looking?
>
> Because I have to admit, I'm growing increasingly suspicious that the argument to keep it secret is not rooted in any actual need for confidentiality, but rather in a desire to avoid the kind of public oversight which we are advocating.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:25 PM Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Jason,
> >
> >
> >
> > I can only speak for myself but no, this isn’t our main concern and I apologise if I was unclear.
> >
> >
> >
> > A branded goods company may own many trade marks – some, 100s (e.g. in the FMCG sector), some, one or a handful (SMEs, start-ups). In the EU, it’s pretty straightforward to find out what TMs are registered and by whom – indeed, it’s basic IP strategy to conduct a search of TM Registers to find out whether the TM you want to have is available, as no-one wants to face needless oppositions, a wasted marketing budget etc. So, as many in the WG have noted, if you want to find out which marks a right holder owns, you can.
> >
> >
> >
> > The TMCH is a totally different thing. A brand that chooses to (pay to) put a TM into the TMCH does so for either commercial reasons (it may apply for a registration in a new gTLD) or enforcement reasons (to have notice if someone else is trying to register such a name). Brands with multiple TMs are unlikely to put all of them into the TMCH, so disclosing which ones it has chosen to put there also discloses its commercial/enforcement strategy – i.e. the TMs about which it is most concerned in the new gTLD space of the DNS.
> >
> >
> >
> > It may not want to announce that to the market for a variety of reasons, either to its competitors (who will then know which of its 100s of TMs it considers most important in the new gTLD space) or to registries/registrars (we all remember some of the “premium pricing” concerns in the new round).
> >
> >
> >
> > As for enforcement, I stress that the TMCH only gives the brand the possibility to be told if someone wants a DN including their TM: it clearly does not result in an automatic block on such a registration, for which there could of course be multiple valid reasons – not least different class and/or no confusion. However in the case of a malicious/bad faith (etc.) registration then yes, the brand would be on notice and could then choose to (pay to) take appropriate enforcement action, including (if appropriate) following the URS route. The brands that I know are not in the business of launching enforcement actions they know are unfounded; they’re in the business of making products that consumers trust and choose to buy.
> >
> >
> >
> > I can’t comment on your scenario below as that has never been brought to me as a concern; the above has. And we fail to see any benefit in the TMCH being public.
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope this is clear, and again apologise if I was not before.
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jason 
> > Schaeffer
> > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 6:52 PM
> > To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> > Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#15 Transparency for the TMCH
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry for not being able to address this on yesterday’s call – I was bounced from the Zoom and couldn’t reconnect from my mobile. After much consideration of the chat comments and statements during the past two calls I’ve parsed together the following strategy concerns that might be at issue. It seems the opposition to an open/transparent TMCH have set forth the following rationale:
> >
> >
> >
> > Large brand owners like the ability to file in “remote” jurisdictions with non-searchable DBs to gain a priority date that can later be used for priority presumably in the US under a Section 44 application under the Paris Convention. For example, Party A could “secretly” register in say Mauritius or Jamaica (jurisdictions that I believe do not have searchable DBs), and then file a Section 44 with the USPTO when ready to “go public.” In this scenario, large brand owner obtains the earlier priority date in the US without having disclosed its “secret” brand plans or strategy. Alternatively, there may also be a similar use case with a registration in the EU. This is what I understand the opposition was presenting in the comments last week and again yesterday.
> >
> >
> >
> > This use of the “secret TM priority” filing method is one thing, and I understand the ostensible business intelligence concerns to require such a tactic. However, we are discussing this in the context of the TMCH. How can these parties obtain Sunrise protection without proof of use? This is even more challenging in the case of an EU registration that might not be based on actual use.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the project is top secret and subject to heightened secrecy, how can the party then show legitimate use of the mark and obtain TMCH protection while maintaining its purported heightened secrecy? What is the POU and what is the declarant stating to the TMCH? Is this the position that the opposition is proffering to block transparency of the TMCH?
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition, if I am correctly capturing how the method is employed in practice, it would be helpful to know if this practice is really in widespread use or rather an outlier, because I’m not yet seeing an important justification that outweighs the important benefits of an open TMCH.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> > GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> > _______________________________________________
> > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191012/6d3e379e/attachment-0001.html>