Hello All,
Please note that I am now using a different email address.
I have had a few questions about whether there will be any further facilitated discussion on IGO protections in Johannesburg.
(1) Regarding the watch list suggestion from the facilitated discussion in Copenhagen. I am aware that ICANN staff have done some further analysis of the options to provide such a service and will brief the Board. I expect the Board will consider the information, and hopefully we will hear whether they plan to proceed with some form of service.
(2) The GNSO IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy Development Process Working Group<https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49J/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protect…> will be holding a 90 min public session at the Johannesburg meeting at 10:30am on Tuesday 27 June 2017.
Details are available at:
https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49J/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protect…
I plan to attend this session to learn more about how the policy work has evolved since the public comment process on their initial report. I recommend all members of this discussion list that will be in Johannesburg come along as well.
I don't believe there is value in having a further facilitated dialogue until we all know how the work of the working group has progressed since Copenhagen.
I will be happy to chat to anyone after that session, and open to any suggestions on how I can help in any way.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Thanks Jonathan –
Could someone clarify, then, for this non-Lawyer - If I tried to apply for a trademark on “WHO” in parts of Canada, or New York , this would be rejected? If so, does it matter which industry or context I intend to use the mark (medical / health services, vs. another industry, say diesel engine repair)?
I’m curious because there are several real-world examples of non-health uses for this string.
Thank you—
J.
From: <discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org" <Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org>
Date: Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 7:33
To: "brucemelbit(a)gmail.com" <brucemelbit(a)gmail.com>
Cc: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org>
Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] IGO Acronyms / 6ter
Dear Bruce,
I had the opportunity to consult with my colleagues at other IGOs on the issue of national laws that protect IGO acronyms. As a basic point, we remain perplexed by the distinction being raised between laws which protect IGOs by disallowing the registration of their acronyms as trademarks and laws which protect IGO acronyms through other means.
In any event, there are many examples of laws which protect IGO acronyms through means other than refusal of registration. We have already seen the examples of Switzerland and Australia. Section 9(1) of Canada’s Trade-marks Act <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/t-13/page-2.html#h-3> is another interesting example because it protects both Red Cross and IGO identifiers, therefore providing a strong indication that IGO and Red Cross identifiers should receive similar treatment in the DNS. Some laws go even further; my colleagues at the UN pointed out a New York State law<http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/general-business-law/gbs-sect-141.html> that classifies as a misdemeanour any unauthorised use of the United Nations name or symbol. This of course in addition to the protections already afforded to IGOs by US federal law under the Lanham Act.
I trust that this is enough to satisfy the enquiry. In any event, I look forward to hearing about next steps.
Kind regards,
Jon
[ogo_mail_uk]<http://www.oecd.org/>
Jonathan Passaro
Legal Adviser
Directorate for Legal Affairs
2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16
jonathan.passaro(a)oecd.org<mailto:jonathan.passaro@oecd.org> || www.oecd.org/legal<http://www.oecd.org/legal>
Dear Bruce,
I had the opportunity to consult with my colleagues at other IGOs on the issue of national laws that protect IGO acronyms. As a basic point, we remain perplexed by the distinction being raised between laws which protect IGOs by disallowing the registration of their acronyms as trademarks and laws which protect IGO acronyms through other means.
In any event, there are many examples of laws which protect IGO acronyms through means other than refusal of registration. We have already seen the examples of Switzerland and Australia. Section 9(1) of Canada's Trade-marks Act <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/t-13/page-2.html#h-3> is another interesting example because it protects both Red Cross and IGO identifiers, therefore providing a strong indication that IGO and Red Cross identifiers should receive similar treatment in the DNS. Some laws go even further; my colleagues at the UN pointed out a New York State law<http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/general-business-law/gbs-sect-141.html> that classifies as a misdemeanour any unauthorised use of the United Nations name or symbol. This of course in addition to the protections already afforded to IGOs by US federal law under the Lanham Act.
I trust that this is enough to satisfy the enquiry. In any event, I look forward to hearing about next steps.
Kind regards,
Jon
[logo_mail_uk]<http://www.oecd.org/>
Jonathan Passaro
Legal Adviser
Directorate for Legal Affairs
2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16
jonathan.passaro(a)oecd.org<mailto:jonathan.passaro@oecd.org> || www.oecd.org/legal<http://www.oecd.org/legal>
