Apologies if I incorrectly in your view added the word percent after the raw numbers. In any event, I stand by what I said, and prefer not to engage in further discussion. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:04 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Without looking at the links you provide, you will see that a search on WIPO's database for "TMCH" shows 33 hits: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?q=tmch.
A search for "Trademark Clearinghouse" shows 72 hits: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?tab=1&q=%22....
These results are against the almost 1,200 UDRP cases involving new gTLDs that have been filed at WIPO. (Even the 100 and 298 figures you cite below, which are presumably across all providers?)
In my book, these statistics (0.0275 and 0.06 percent respectively) qualify as "very few".
72 out of 1200 is 6 percent, not 0.06 percent. [similarly 33 out of 1200 is 2.75%, not 0.0275 percent] Whether that's a "few" or "very few" or "high" is subjective -- having the raw numbers is less subjective. I personally would not call 72 cases "very few" (and that wouldn't include NAF, etc., or the cases where it's mentioned in a complaint, but not in the decision] If 6% of UDRPs result in a RDNH result, some might call that "very high" --- it's all a matter of perspective. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg