+1 Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 1999 K Street, NW<x-apple-data-detectors://2/2> Washington, DC 20006-1101<x-apple-data-detectors://2/2> 202.263.3284<tel:202.263.3284> direct dial 202.830.0330<tel:202.830.0330> fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> New York, New York 10020-1001<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> 212.506.2345<tel:212.506.2345> direct dial On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:32 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Paul: Here again, you are overstating. Trademark owners are not seeking to expand their rights. On the contrary, they are looking for scalable solutions that recognize the rights afforded to them by jurisdicdtions around the world. J. Scott J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01%7C0... On 4/25/17, 12:37 PM, "Paul Keating" <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote: I have NO desire to expand any rights accorded to trademark holders. I believe they have been expanded beyond that which is reasonable or supportable given legal and policy constraints. Sent from my iPad On 25 Apr 2017, at 20:32, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote: That's because it came from words that weren't mine. If no one at all is interested in defending the "expanding the match" proposal that this thread is supposed to cover, does that mean that we have a consensus that it's not worth pursuing? I'm not sure what the procedure for determining that would be. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote: I'm sorry but these 2 statements seem to be in conflict with each other..... I don't in fact think that the TMCH contains names of those individuals who've been wrongly deterred from registering domain names they had a right to register. As has been discussed for a while, I think it contains other relevant evidence, like more words like "cloud" and "hotel" that prima facie don't seem likely to justify preemptive rights across new gTLDs. I am more concerned about the latter but must say I really don't understand what is meant by the former. Sent from my iPad On 25 Apr 2017, at 16:22, Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com<mailto:SAustin@vlplawgroup.com>> wrote: I don't in fact think that the TMCH contains names of those individuals who've been wrongly deterred from registering domain names they had a right to register. As has been discussed for a while, I think it contains other relevant evidence, like more words like "cloud" and "hotel" that prima facie don't seem likely to justify preemptive rights across new gTLDs. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.