[GNSO-RPM-WG] Simplified language to bring together individual TMCH #4 & #5 proposals

[Paul Keating]

Thanks Paul

Getting back to 3.2.4, I have not seen any examples where a mark would be appropriately included (outside of an “ancillary database”) under 3.2.4 but having not qualified under 3.2.1, 3.2.2 or 3.2.3.

My suggestion is to therefore limit 3.2.4 so it only applies as to possible inclusion in the ancillary database.

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Jul 2020, at 14:31, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com> wrote:


AGB TMCH (4 June 2012)

1.4 Trademark Clearinghouse Service Provider may provide ancillary services, as long as those services and any data used for those services are kept separate from the Clearinghouse database.

4.1 All mark holders seeking to have their marks included in the Clearinghouse will have to consent to the use of their information by the Clearinghouse. However, such consent would extend only to use in connection with the stated purpose of the Trademark Clearinghouse Database for Sunrise or Trademark Claims services. The reason for such a provision would be to presently prevent the Clearinghouse from using the data in other ways without permission. There shall be no bar on the Trademark Clearinghouse Service Provider or other third party service providers providing ancillary services on a non-exclusive basis.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 1:17 PM Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com>> wrote:
AGB TMCH (4 June 2012)

3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are:
3.2.1 Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all jurisdictions.
3.2.2 Any word mark that has been validated through a court of law or other judicial proceeding.
3.2.3 Any word mark protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion.
3.2.4 Other marks that constitute intellectual property.
3.2.5 Protections afforded to trademark registrations do not extend to applications for registrations, marks within any opposition period or registered marks that were the subject of successful invalidation, cancellation or rectification proceedings


My understanding is those drafting the AGB TMCH policies wished to have a catch all for marks excluded from 3.2.1, 3.2.2 & 3.2.3 which could be tailored to individual registry operators requirements.

The original wording has not been changed in any way.

I agree with you it is very wide open it could include unregistered marks for example, but I believe this is as was intended by those drafting the original clauses to afford registry operators as much local flexibility as possible.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:55 PM Paul Keating <paul at law.es<mailto:paul at law.es>> wrote:
Paul,

I am still confused about the application of 3.2.4 and my confusion continues with the addition of 3.2.9.

Can someone please explain the following:


  1.  Reason for having 3.2.4 at all?
  2.  Reason for the “ancillary database”

Many thanks,

Paul Keating

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 1:24 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Simplified language to bring together individual TMCH #4 & #5 proposals

Hi All, Please see below improved wording for 3.2.7 bringing together GAC advice and Mary’s / Staff observations and new clauses 3.2.8 & 3.2.9 clarifying working group member’s policy intentions. Best regards, Paul


3.2.7     Word marks here include service marks, collective marks, certification marks and word marks protected by statute or treaty.

3.2.8     Sunrise and Claims services available through the TMCH are limited only to word marks under sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 (as further limited by sections 3.2.5 and 3.2.6).

3.2.9     Nothing in section 3.2 shall exclude the TMCH provider and registry operators from offering additional voluntary services to mark holders (e.g. via ancillary databases). Marks under section 3.2.4 must be held in an ancillary database.



Implementation of Consensus Policy for the Protection of Red Cross & Red Crescent Identifiers
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-18-en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200730/bd40cfa8/attachment-0001.html>