Dear all, Staff has now updated the summary table of the 29 cases where a Final Determination was issued (see attached). As confirmed by Renee and David in previous emails, our assumption is that all 29 Final Determination cases refer to those cases where a Response was filed on or after the Default date, but within the permissible 6-month response period. Statistical summary Out of the 29 (out of 827) cases where a de novo review occurred: * The Respondent prevailed in 6 cases (meaning the Complainant prevailed in 23). * The Final Determination in 28 cases was rendered in English (the sole exception being one in Spanish). * 3 cases saw a Response filed on the same day as the issuance of the Default Determination (and of the 3, 1 saw the Respondent prevail). * 2 cases saw a Response filed on the date of Default (with the Complainant prevailing in both cases). * All but one case involving a Chinese registrant saw a Response filed in English (the remaining case saw a blank Response filed). In the 21 cases where a Final Determination was issued and no Appeal followed (there were Appeals in 2 out of the 23 cases where the Final Determination was in favor of the Complainant): * The Complainant prevailed on all 3 substantive grounds. In the 2 cases where an Appeal was filed following the Final Determination: * The Complainant prevailed on appeal. We have updated the Summary Table (attached) to include these statistical points, and we have also included links to all 29 cases. We hope the attachment and the statistical summary are useful, and we will now proceed to prepare a list of possible administrative improvements for the Sub Team’s consideration, based on David McAuley’s report on the call today and the staff observation from reviewing the 29 cases of de novo review. Thanks and cheers Mary & Berry From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 00:44 To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [The image of the 2018 GII cover shows crashing waves captured within the outline of a battery cell, representing the raw power of innovation.][wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.