Straw Poll: Whether the UNITAID decision procedural roadmap fulfills this PDP's mandate?
Hi folks, Just to highlight a snippet from a prior post, there was critical language in the UNITAID UDRP decision at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=3DD2012-1922 which says: "In 2009, a Fiduciary Agreement was made between the World Health Organization/Unitaid and the Complainant to file and hold in its own name, for the benefit of Unitaid, the necessary applications for the protection of the “Unitaid” name, according to the instructions and under the control of World Health Organization/Unitaid. In 2009, the Complainant thus registered, in its own name but for the benefit of World Health Organization/Unitaid, UNITAID as a trademark in numerous jurisdictions." In my view, it really demonstrates how IGOs can work within the existing UDRP, without any amendments whatsoever and without any new DRP. Perhaps IGOs just aren't aware that they can do the above? It neatly and simultaneously handles concerns over standing and immunity, which are the main "issues" at the moment. Lenz & Staehelin, by the way, is a Swiss law firm, so they essentially stood as a proxy for the IGO itself (kind of like my own proposal in a prior email, where I suggested a Federal government in the same jurisdiction as the registrant might become the proxy). For INGOs, we called for a vote or straw poll or whatever to see whether we'd reached a conclusion on their issues. Perhaps the same kind of vote might be appropriate at this point, if everyone was satisfied that all IGOs could do the above? It's disappointing that the IGOs aren't participating directly in the PDP, because we're essentially trying to invent reasons to continue our work on their behalf, and are probably seeing that the issues are getting narrower and narrower and perhaps have shrunk to zero. I think if IGOs were made aware of that helpful precedent at WIPO, they might stop pestering the GAC, and allow us to conclude sooner, rather than later. I'd appreciate arguments as to why IGOs *can't* do the above procedure, if anyone has them. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Sorry, the link to the WIPO decision was bad. It's actually at; http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922 Also, there might be a valid concern that I'm relying upon only one WIPO decision (there haven't been too many involving IGOs to begin with!). So, I searched the WIPO Overview 2.0, and found a section which is on point, and appears to support the UNITAID approach, see: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/#18 1.8 Can a trademark licensee or a related company to a trademark holder have rights in a trademark for the purpose of filing a UDRP case? Consensus view: In most circumstances, a licensee of a trademark or a related company such as a subsidiary or parent to the registered holder of a trademark is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP. For the purpose of filing under the UDRP, evidence of such license and/or authorization of the principal trademark holder to the bringing of the UDRP complaint would tend to support such a finding. Panels have in certain cases been prepared to infer the existence of a license and/or authorization from the particular facts, but in general, relevant evidence is desirable. Although not a requirement, panels have on occasion found it helpful, where a complaint relies on a common source of trademark rights, for all relevant rights holders to be included as co-complainants. It's not exactly the same (a licensee vs. an authorized proxy registrant of the mark), but it's similar in nature. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (1)
-
George Kirikos