Fun post Jeremy. Not terribly on point, but still a nice cheeky change of pace to bring a little levity to the list. I’ll treat you to another one. Maybe the
EFF is anti-free speech since it has (under some of the arguments raised by not-me on this list) obtained exclusive rights to speak within the following 125 domain names.
;-)
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
13 |
|
|
14 |
|
|
15 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
18 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
20 |
|
|
21 |
|
|
22 |
|
|
23 |
|
|
24 |
|
|
25 |
|
|
26 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
28 |
|
|
29 |
|
|
30 |
|
|
31 |
|
|
32 |
|
|
33 |
|
|
34 |
|
|
35 |
|
|
36 |
|
|
37 |
|
|
38 |
|
|
39 |
|
|
40 |
|
|
41 |
|
|
42 |
|
|
43 |
|
|
44 |
|
|
45 |
|
|
46 |
|
|
47 |
|
|
48 |
|
|
49 |
|
|
50 |
|
|
51 |
|
|
52 |
|
|
53 |
|
|
54 |
|
|
55 |
|
|
56 |
|
|
57 |
|
|
58 |
|
|
59 |
|
|
60 |
|
|
61 |
|
|
62 |
|
|
63 |
|
|
64 |
|
|
65 |
|
|
66 |
|
|
67 |
|
|
68 |
|
|
69 |
|
|
70 |
|
|
71 |
|
|
72 |
|
|
73 |
|
|
74 |
|
|
75 |
|
|
76 |
|
|
77 |
|
|
78 |
|
|
79 |
|
|
80 |
|
|
81 |
|
|
82 |
|
|
83 |
|
|
84 |
|
|
85 |
|
|
86 |
|
|
87 |
|
|
88 |
|
|
89 |
|
|
90 |
|
|
91 |
|
|
92 |
|
|
93 |
|
|
94 |
|
|
95 |
|
|
96 |
|
|
97 |
|
|
98 |
|
|
99 |
|
|
100 |
|
|
101 |
|
|
102 |
|
|
103 |
|
|
104 |
|
|
105 |
|
|
106 |
|
|
107 |
|
|
108 |
|
|
109 |
|
|
110 |
|
|
111 |
|
|
112 |
|
|
113 |
|
|
114 |
|
|
115 |
|
|
116 |
|
|
117 |
|
|
118 |
|
|
119 |
|
|
120 |
|
|
121 |
|
|
122 |
|
|
123 |
|
|
124 |
|
|
125 |
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 4:04 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
On 26/4/17 6:50 pm, icannlists wrote:
Thanks Rebecca. I'm not characterizing you as anti-trademark; just your arguments and positions to date on this list. We would very much welcome anything favorable to trademarks that you wish to add to the discourse.
It may be worth noting that if we go by the public remarks of the International Trademark Association, they too don't seem to believe that the lowest common denominator standards of a single country should have extra-territorial application throughout the world,
as occurs in the case of the TMCH (this comes from their application to be joined to the Equustek case, a Canadian case which sought to apply its law extra-territorially).
INTA has an over-arching interest in having the territoriality of trademark law recognized in court decisions around the world. This appeal is squarely within INTA's interests as it raises the issue of the appropriate territorial effect of an injunctive remedy granted in the context of trademark litigation. ... In particular INTA will provide submissions on how the territorial nature of trademark rights relates to the scope of extra-territorial injunctions available to enforce those rights; and the issue of trademark territoriality as it relates to "the core values of any nation" that may be effected by an extra-territorial injunction which prevents, in the worlds of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, "advertising [of] wares that violate ... intellectual property rights."
So maybe INTA too is anti-trademark. ;-)
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm@eff.org