The limitation is a consequence of several patent offices around the world don't have the trade mark process digitalized so their content will not be in the clearinghouse, meaning: or some money will put upfront to have these docs digitalized to assure all trade marks will be respected or only the marks registered at the patent office that have digitalized process will be inside the clearinghouse. -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:14 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fw: [Name-Issues] URGENT: At Large Consultation My understanding is that there will be no such limitation. If this is an open question, it should be added to the issues that the GNSO-STI group is looking at. Alan At 30/10/2009 07:44 PM, Vanda UOL wrote:
Dear Olivier As I already had the opportunity to point out my concern about clearing house is the fact that any clearing house will be limited to those countries that had trade marks already digitalized, not many of developing countries. This will have the implications of demand any national of those countries interested to have their marks into the clearinghouse to try to register the marks at some of the countries inside the data base. Meaning higher cost and not balanced protection around. Second, but not our problem, I don't see a real good business model for this.
vanda
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:50 PM To: At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Fw: [Name-Issues] URGENT: At Large Consultation
Folks: [Vanda Scartezini]
apologies for cross-posting, but I don't know if enough people are subscribed to the other list, so I'l like to obtain as much feedback as possible. Over on the names-issues At Large list, we are having a consultation re: the Trademark Clearinghouse and the "Uniform Rapid Suspension System" (URS).
Yesterday, the GNSO formally created a GNSO Review Team to draft a reply to the Board's letter enquiring about solutions/suggestions for the "Trademark Clearinghouse" and "URS" parts of the IRT recommendations regarding Trademark rights for new gTLDs.The deadline for At Large filing a draft reply is 4 November 2009. That gives us about 5 days to respond. With many people currently travelling, this is a very short deadline, but it is required for GNSO procedural matters to reply to the Board's letter in time. A copy of the brainstorming sheet drafted during the meeting yesterday is downloadable from the Web page of our working group:
https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_naming_issues_taskfo r ce
and has a link to the brainstorming sheet in question named: STI Brainstorming Notes.doc
Please be so kind to download it and email replies to me, or to the name-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org list (registration might be required)
Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican n.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org