The truth is that the Notice was originally designed by Neustar in lieu of the Sunrise. However, in an effort to offer a broad array of options, the TMCH data was tied to 2 possible RPMs. The original notice designed by the IRT was simply a notice of prior rights. Concerned that the IRT suggested notice was too simple, the STI (in response to urging from Kathy and like-minded others) was to create the (IMHO) overly complex notice we have now. 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 www.adobe.com On 3/28/17, 2:01 PM, "Paul Keating" <paul@law.es> wrote: J.Scott, With all respect, The notice process was requested by trademark holders in order to establish actual notice. Constructive notice was not then accepted by UDRP panels. Sent from my iPad > On 28 Mar 2017, at 22:49, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote: > > Paul: > > Always taking the most negative view. The notice serves to warn a party that there could be an issue so that purchaser can make an informed decision before proceeding. > > > 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 > www.adobe.com > > > > > On 3/28/17, 1:14 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul@law.es> wrote: > > Marie, > > Sorry but I don't understand your questions. > > The notice is intended to remove the ignorance defense of the registrant. It operates to preclude a defense that the registration was undertaken without knowledge of the trademark rights at issue. In this way it discourages the registration by a cybersquatter who might otherwise think they were getting away with something . > > One of the WG questions was directed to finding out how effective the notice was (e.g how many registrations occurred notwithstanding the notice). > > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 28 Mar 2017, at 22:00, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> wrote: >> >> And what Claims Notice would stop you registering a DN, Rebecca? How many brand holders would take action against something that doesn't affect them? >> M >> >> Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos >> >>> On 28 Mar 2017, at 21:56, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately, "searching a TM registry" won't get the job done, >>> because--as we've discussed before in other contexts--TMCH >>> registrations are different. They provide claims no matter what the >>> goods or services are. No matter what I want to use "the" or "color" >>> etc. for, they're in the TMCH. That is different from any trademark >>> registry (even most of the previous attempts to create "fame" >>> registries required goods/services listings). >>> Rebecca Tushnet >>> Georgetown Law >>> 703 593 6759 >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> wrote: >>>> Thanks Rebecca. >>>> If anyone wants to know what TMs exist, search a TM Registry. They're public. Claims Notices in the TMCH context tell you only that a TM owner has recorded that name - not that they are going to take action against you. They're not the same thing. >>>> Marie >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos >>>> >>>>> On 28 Mar 2017, at 21:20, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think the value of transparency has been articulated here several >>>>> times, whether or not you agree: legitimate market entrants--who, not >>>>> for nothing, are also likely to be trademark owners--may want to know >>>>> what they can do. People concerned with the integrity of the register >>>>> want to know whether (as current data seem to indicate) many of the >>>>> existing registrants and many existing claims notices are asserting >>>>> control over domain names whose value is distinct from trademark value >>>>> attributable to the registrant. Those are the usual values of >>>>> transparency: knowing what's going on so one can order one's own >>>>> behavior accordingly, and/or advocate for change where change is >>>>> desirable. >>>>> >>>>> On the other side, I find persuasive the argument that cybersquatters >>>>> generally don't need to consult any records to figure out what domains >>>>> they want and thus I find it hard to identify the harm to be avoided. >>>>> We are talking here about the marginal impact of transparency in the >>>>> TMCH added to the public nature of registration (searchable online in >>>>> many large nations) and the public nature of trademark fame (e.g., >>>>> Twentieth Century Fox, to take an example that's been discussed). For >>>>> me, transparency in the TMCH would provide a lot of TMCH-relevant >>>>> information but has only a marginal effect on information about >>>>> trademark values generally, arguing in favor of transparency. >>>>> Rebecca Tushnet >>>>> Georgetown Law >>>>> 703 593 6759 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> wrote: >>>>>> Can we look at what we are trying to achieve maybe? What greater good would an open database give balanced against the harm TM owners would suffer? >>>>>> >>>>>> No one wants to promote bad players for a theory. What is the reality? We all want a clean space. We all want legal commercial growth. And we all want the common good. No? >>>>>> >>>>>> Marie >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 Mar 2017, at 20:38, Michael Karanicolas <michael@law-democracy.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Greg, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I had a perfect solution to prevent cybersquatting in my pocket I >>>>>>> probably would have led with it :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That said, my aim in drafting that was to try and help frame the >>>>>>> discussion, rather than to try and close it. Look, my expertise is >>>>>>> more on the transparency side than on the trademark side. But on the >>>>>>> transparency side, we deal with potential harms all the time - be they >>>>>>> for information involving national security, personal privacy - or >>>>>>> legitimate commercial interests like trademark protection. And >>>>>>> generally, we seek to find an avenue forward which provides adequate >>>>>>> protection for these interests, while respecting the overarching >>>>>>> interest in openness. This calculus shouldn't mean that openness is >>>>>>> abandoned whenever a potential for harm is encountered. Indeed, if >>>>>>> that were the case almost no information would end up being put out >>>>>>> there. Rather, it means assessing the specific harms that would flow >>>>>>> directly from the specific disclosures, weighing them against the >>>>>>> public interest in disclosure, and seeking ways to work around those >>>>>>> harms which also provide for maximum openness. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, while I don't have a readymade solution to present, I do think we >>>>>>> need to work together to find one. Reverting to secrecy is just not >>>>>>> consistent with ICANN's broader mission, given that the entire model >>>>>>> is based on public oversight and accountability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking forward to engaging on this further. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P.S. I'm not sure why it's at all relevant who actually drafted the >>>>>>> text of the EFF letter? As someone who's been involved in many similar >>>>>>> efforts, they can be done fully collaboratively, or with one or two of >>>>>>> the signatories taking the lead. Either way though, all of the names >>>>>>> attached to it have approved and endorsed it. These are very senior >>>>>>> and respected experts - they don't just throw their names on any >>>>>>> document that's sent their way. If they signed the letter it means >>>>>>> they support it - what does it matter who held the pen? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Michael, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you have any solutions for the issues and concerns that have been >>>>>>>> mitigated by having the database be closed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>>> C: 917-816-6428 >>>>>>>> S: gsshatan >>>>>>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>>>>>>> gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Michael Karanicolas >>>>>>>> <michael@law-democracy.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just building on the discussion around transparency, after hearing the >>>>>>>>> conversation at ICANN 58 I drafted my own short note setting out my >>>>>>>>> thoughts on the issue, which I'm attaching here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I want to be mindful of the conversation on inputs which is ongoing >>>>>>>>> now - so hopefully it isn't out of place or inappropriate to submit my >>>>>>>>> thoughts via this method. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I very much look forward to further discussions on this issue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Michael Karanicolas >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Mary. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Co-Chairs, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we >>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>> discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with >>>>>>>>>> respect to >>>>>>>>>> design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other >>>>>>>>>> issues. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion >>>>>>>>>> around >>>>>>>>>> the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), >>>>>>>>>> as I >>>>>>>>>> think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow >>>>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>>>> out work. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> T: +1.703.635.7514 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> M: +1.202.549.5079 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @Jintlaw >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org >>>>>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] >>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> information on Deloitte Ancillary Services >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following >>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>> matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested >>>>>>>>>> document (for #1) and information (for #2). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and >>>>>>>>>> practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with >>>>>>>>>> certain aspects of the TMCH: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org.... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is >>>>>>>>>> permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> ICANN’s authorization. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Extended Claims Services >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark >>>>>>>>>> Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name >>>>>>>>>> registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party’s >>>>>>>>>> recorded >>>>>>>>>> labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a >>>>>>>>>> domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the >>>>>>>>>> potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such >>>>>>>>>> registrant >>>>>>>>>> intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark >>>>>>>>>> Clearinghouse). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Audit Report >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and >>>>>>>>>> Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark >>>>>>>>>> Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> domain names registered in an Eligible TLD. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> FYI, Deloitte’s contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> fifth anniversary of ICANN’s entry into a Registry Agreement under the >>>>>>>>>> New >>>>>>>>>> gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although >>>>>>>>>> Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint >>>>>>>>>> additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been >>>>>>>>>> completed >>>>>>>>>> under the New gTLD Program. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks and cheers >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mary >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> !DSPAM:58dabffd17168279290674! >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... >