Bearing in mind that the PDDRP panel may not award damages, and that the remedy needs to consider the question of “ongoing harm”, what is the need for a time limitation? I would argue there is an inherent balance in the way the PDDRP is currently structured that obviates the need for a specific time limitation for when the PDDRP can be brought. And even if the harm was not ongoing, there may be an interest on the part of the trademark owner to ensure that the registry is directed to take steps to ensure prevention of future infringing registrations. Ultimately, the equities will be balanced by the expert panel in making its determination. I would also be interested in whether there was a specific reason why the question of time limitations wasn’t addressed in the PDDRP when it was first drafted. Perhaps that can shed some light on whether we need to retread those steps. Bradley From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:26 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] PDDRP topics -- limitation period to bring a PDDRP Steve brings up (indirectly) an interesting topic, namely that there is no "mutual jurisdiction" clause to the PDDRP (21.3 only says a "court of competent jurisdiction"). If a complaint (or appeal) was brought by one side in a jurisdiction that the other side doesn't accept, how would it be resolved? Obviously it would have to be resolved by the court in which the law suit was brought (i.e as a defense to the action) and/or some other "superior" jurisdiction. [Perhaps some of the registrars, who have similar "court of competent jurisdiction" language in their registrar agreements might want to chime in......I hope that Tucows, for example, would ignore any orders from a Turkish or Iranian court for a Canadian or US-based registrant who obeys Canadian/US laws.] So, if we modified the time limit in the manner he suggests, we have to be very careful to phrase things in such a manner as to not assume that a certain jurisdiction's time limits would actually apply. i.e. the location of the registry operator would definitely be a valid jurisdiction to bring an action against them. The preferred location of the TM holder / PDDRP complainant may or may not be a valid jurisdiction. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com>> wrote: George, I understand the foundation of your idea - that parties should not have greater rights through the PDDRP than they would in a court of law. But, by the same token, they shouldn't have lesser rights either. As such, I suggest revising your recommendation so that any time limit for bringing a PDDRP claim would be the longer of the applicable statute of limitations for such a claim in the complainant’s or respondent's jurisdictions if such claim were to have been brought in the courts. Regards, Steve [cid:image001.png@01D1E298.42FD54E0] Steven M. Levy, Esq. Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147 United States Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. On 7/20/16, 1:49 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, I don't think this was brought up before yet in the context of the PDDRP, but perhaps it can be added to the list of topics. It would be very odd if complainants were allowed to bring a PDDRP for a matter that was not able to be brought by them in a court of law, because it was barred by the relevant statute of limitations. I think amending the PDDRP to explicitly add a time limit for bringing a PDDRP would make sense, to handle this situation. 2 years would be a suitable limit, in my opinion, and would help ensure that complaints are brought in a timely fashion. Thoughts? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com> ================================================================= ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
