Happy to contribute to such a call. I am going to be on a call today between 1 and 2 pm EST trying to work off line with Kathy Kleiman and Mark Partridge on Elements of the URS. So just after then today Or Tomorrow before or after the STI call on the Clearinghouse (1900 UTC) works for me. Or Day after before or after the STI call on the URS (1600 UTC) Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:35:38 To: Zahid Jamil<zahid@dndrc.com>; Steve Delbianco<sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org>; Philip Sheppard<philip.sheppard@aim.be>; Mike Rodenbaugh<icann@rodenbaugh.com>; <secretariat@bizconst.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Re: Urgent! Do we kill the Trademark Clearinghouse - being sold as Christmas Gift to TM Holders HMMMMM _ there is an open DAG 3 process -- multiple companies -- some of whom are BC members -- have expressed their support for the Trademark Clearinghouse and their concern for staff [and potentially Board] watering down the recommendation of the IRT. I need to resort myself on this after a 2 hour meeting that has me consumed with other stuff. Thus, I will post with a detailed response later today. BUT -- do we need a quick call among concerned members? I will volunteer to provide a bridge if necessary. From: zahid@dndrc.com To: sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org; philip.sheppard@aim.be; icann@rodenbaugh.com; secretariat@bizconst.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Re: Urgent! Do we kill the Trademark Clearinghouse - being sold as Christmas Gift to TM Holders Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:14:17 +0500 Re: [bc-gnso] Re: Urgent! Do we kill the Trademark Clearinghouse - being sold as Christmas Gift to TM Holders This is very helpful. Thanks. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:11 PM To: zahid@dndrc.com; 'bc - GNSO list'; Philip Sheppard; Mike Rodenbaugh; BC Secretariat Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Re: Urgent! Do we kill the Trademark Clearinghouse - being sold as Christmas Gift to TM Holders Zahid — Thanks for raising the alarm about this ‘white elephant’ of a Christmas gift. I am checking with my members, but it seems best to reject the gift as a comprehensive solution to defensive registrations. Trick is to avoid looking like we are just attempting to slow-down the new gTLD launch. Perhaps we do something like this: We could agree that the Clearinghouse has a very limited benefit — just a way to cut costs for TM owners having to monitor multiple parallel sunrise periods. But that’s ALL it is, so we should neither consider nor accept this Clearinghouse mechanism as the required solution for defensive registrations. --Steve On 12/2/09 2:19 AM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@dndrc.com> wrote: Not sure if this got to the list. Gary, would it possible to make sure this gets posted. Thanks. Sincerely,Zahid JamilBarrister-at-lawJamil & JamilBarristers-at-law219-221 Central Hotel AnnexeMerewether Road, Karachi. PakistanCell: +923008238230Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025Fax: +92 21 5655026www.jamilandjamil.com*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** From: "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@jamilandjamil.com> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:44:11 +0500 To: 'bc - GNSO list'<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Urgent! Do we kill the Trademark Clearinghouse - being sold as Christmas Gift to TM Holders Dear All, As you all know that Trademark protection is a major issue for launch of new gTLDs. The concern: There is a concern that the IP clearing house (the way its developing in the Special TM Implementation-STI Working Group which is supposed to send recommendations to the GNSO for being placed before the ICANN Board) may be an eyewash/placebo. It doesn’t address any of the pre-launch concerns of Trademark Mark Holders (TM Holders) such as defensive registrations. But it is being presented as a great compromise/favour and ‘Christmas gift’ to TM Holders. Here are some of the aspects that may be useful for you to know and provide views on: Who pays: TM Holders have to PAY ANNULLAY to be in the TM Clearinghouse – (Registry’s suggest that only TM Holders pick up the cost even though Registry’s get a windfall cost saving for pre-launch for sunrise and pre-launch IP claims) What is included in it: The IP Clearinghouse ONLY includes Nationally Registered Marks (NO common law marks can be included nor any other types of protected names) With what does my brand match: One would expect that as in Mark Monitor and even self-searches not only the brand name but variants would be matched. NO. The match is defined as ONLY IDENTICAL/EXACT match i.e. If the brand is “Yahoo”, the only time a match for the services mentioned below would be triggered is if someone tried to register the domain name “yahoo.TLD” – and that’s it. However, “yahoos.TLD”, “yahoosearch.TLD” or “yahoosports.TLD” or “searchyahoo.TLD” etc. would NOT be matched. What is this database used for: For only PRE-LAUNCH (so it serves no purpose to be in the Clearing house POST-launch): Sunrise – for which a TM Holder may have to PAY for dispute resolution in case another TM holder’s rights conflicts with theirs – AND – forcing TM Holders to defensively PAY for registering domain names as abundant caution to ensure that registrants don’t get them once the gTLD is launched – remember, however, the match is only for IDENTICAL Or IP Claims Notice– this is nothing more than a notice provision to people attempting to register the IDENTICAL domain as the brand in PRE-LAUNCH ONLY. In Pre-launch, if someone tries to register ‘yahoo.TLD’, then they get a notice telling them that their application matches with a brand in the IP Clearinghouse. They are asked if they affirm that they will only use this for legitimate purposes (paraphrase) – they accept by clinking ‘affirm’ and they get the domain name. The TM holder only gets a notice that such a registration has been allowed once the new gTLD has launched to then decide whether to file a UDS, UDRP or Court case. No notices, however, in case someone tries to register “yahoosearch.TLD”. How can this be gamed: As a bad actor I wait and don’t register any domains with are EXACT matches in PRE-LAUNCH such as “yahoo.TLD” and wait for the first 30 seconds of the new gTLD being launched and register then to CIRCUMVENT the entire “WHITE ELEPHANT” for which as Brand holder I am being forced to PAY to keep it running. But as a bad actor I can register “yahoos.TLD”, “yahoosearch.TLD” or “yahoosports.TLD” or “searchyahoo.TLD” etc. in PRE-LAUNCH and POST-LAUNCH and I won’t get a notice and the Brand holder won’t get a notice. One advantage is that there will be one registration of TM (ANNUALLY PAID FOR RENEWALS) for Sunrise and so all new Registry’s won’t have to spend money on Consultancy/Admin etc. for Sunrise – so it’s really a SUNRISE CLEARING HOUSE for cutting Registry costs. My opinion: This doesn’t help small businesses nor does it help developing country Brand owners since they probably won’t be participating in Sunrise and pre-launch. This IP CLEARINGHOUSE is being presented as a great compromise by Registries, Registrars and Non-Commercials. One even described it offline as a ‘Christmas Gift’ to Trademark Holders. Options: We state our objections but let it go through. This then becomes for the Board a solution for defensive registrations by TM holders and so seemingly, for the record, addresses Brand holders’ concerns in Pre-Launch and defensive registrations. OR We state clearly that we as TM Holders don’t want this solution since it fails to address/solve the real problems identified by Brand Holders. A thought: would not being in the IP CLEARINGHOUSE be seen as not being vigilant in protecting your brand name thus creating a legal imperative to forcibly have to register and PAY to be in it? I don’t know. Just as background. This Clearing house was an adjunct and ancillary piece of technology/database to facilitate the Globally Protected Marks List (GPML). Now that the GPML has been jettisoned, this ancillary to GPML (byproduct) is still being proposed by the Board & Staff as a solution for Trademark protection in for new gTLDs. A Solution looking for a problem to solve? This is my humble and very quick attempt to try and simplify the issue and would welcome any additions or clarifications or corrections. The STI is supposed to have a conference call on this in 2 days. Hope this helps and looking for feedback. Best regards, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482