Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Design Marks and GIs survey.

When some jurisdictions require substantive review of marks entering their trademark database and others give out marks like confetti for any conceivable idea you might wish to pursue in the future and, given the TMCH has to sit on top of all jurisdictions, I think there is a fundamental question that needs to be answered before delving into the detail of the other questions since its answer impacts the approach taken in most of the other questions.The first question has to be:

Should we require a substantive review of all marks entering the TMCH?

Best regards,

Paul.

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

Please be informed that the poll to assess the sense of all members of the Working Group, in relation to certain types of design marks (i.e. stylized and composite marks) and to treatment of geographical indications, is now open. Please be sure to fill in your response by 23.59 UTC on Monday 10 July: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WV26DQK.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

The Working Group co-chairs, assisted by staff, have developed a Reference Guide containing relevant definitions (i.e. of “stylized marks” and “composite marks”) as well as of relevant examples. This Reference Guide is attached for your convenience, and it should be consulted as Working Group members go through the survey, which consists of 11 substantive questions and we believe ought not to take too much time to fill in.

Finally, please also note – the poll should be taken only by Working Group members, and not observers.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg