Thanks for the heads-up Kristina. At this stage, do we know if the STI is actually planning to propose the limitations mentioned in its final report? I'm only asking because I don't really see what action can be taken around any of the STI stuff until we see their final report... Thanks, Stéphane Le 3 déc. 2009 à 16:01, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :
All,
With apologies for duplication to those who are subscribe to or read the STI list, I am forwarding a message posted on behalf of IPC leadership and the IPC STI representatives.
Given the importance of this issue and the potential ramifications, I wanted to make certain you are all aware of it.
K
From: owner-gnso-sti@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:57 AM To: 'GNSO STI' Subject: [gnso-sti] FW: Re: Clearinghouse statement
Dear All,
Please find the attached statement from the IPC.
Best Regards,
Margie
From: Mark V. B. Partridge [mailto:mvbp@pattishall.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:48 AM To: Margie Milam Cc: mcgradyp@gtlaw.com Subject: Fwd: Re: Clearinghouse statement
Margie,
I'm not sure if this went to entire STI list. Would you please see that it does. Thanks.
Mark
<ATT00001.bmp>
Mark V.B. Partridge Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive - Suite 5000 - Chicago, IL 60606 T (312) 554-8000 Direct (312) 554-7922 F (312) 554-8015 mpartridge@pattishall.com www.pattishall.com
*************************************************************************** The preceding message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. You may not forward this message or any attachments without the permission of the sender. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Nothing in this email message, including the typed name of the sender and/or this signature block, is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in the message. ***************************************************************************
De : "Mark V. B. Partridge" <mvbp@pattishall.com> Date : 3 décembre 2009 04:18:35 HNEC À : "GNSO STI" <gnso-sti@icann.org>, "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@icann.org> Objet : Rép : Clearinghouse statement
Dear Members of the STI:
Your attention is invited to the following statement on behalf of the IPC leadership and STI representatives for consideration in connection with our telephone conference on the Clearinghouse on December 3, 2009.
Cordially,
Mark Partridge
>>>>>
The STI is currently considering a proposal advocated by the NCSG representatives to the STI that would limit the trademark registration data included in the Clearinghouse to trademark registrations from countries that undertake substantive review.
This proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the IRT, and the IPC is strongly opposed to limiting the Clearinghouse in that manner. A large number of developing and developed countries, including most of Europe, do not engage in substantive review on relative grounds. It is a serious problem and unwise for ICANN to treat such systems in the Clearinghouse as being inferior or to disinfranchise registrants from these countries from participation in the Clearinghouse. This would particularly prejudice small businesses and not-for-profits who may only budget for a limited number of registrations in their country of origin, rather than a global registration program.
Instead, the Clearinghouse, at a minimum, should include registrations of national or multinational effect, as recommended by the IRT. The proper solution for concerns about the scope and validity of registrations is to record all registrations of national or multi-national effect, and to deal with questions of scope and validity through notice, disclosure, challenge procedures and filing deadlines.
Reliance on the IRT report with respect to the URS standards is misplaced, as the URS is part of an overall dispute resolution system that accepts all types of trademark rights and merely limits the rights at issue in the URS where prior substantive review of registrations facilitates expedited proceedings.