Sorry. I failed to respond to the full list. In the gym. 😋 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> Date: April 26, 2017 at 6:53:48 AM PDT To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance) I don't need a citation for black letter trademark. I can point you to McCarthy. I am fully aware that cause celeb with some IP academics is word exhaustion. However, ignoring that PARENTS is a suggestive mark for publications or that certain, even if initially descriptive, can become (at least in the US) a strong mark. I get you are fundamentally opposed to any mark having protection beyond its goods and services (even though both the ACPA and Dilution both embrace those concepts). I also know that trademark law is very fact specific with multi-factored tests to prove infringement. For this reason, you and I could throw citations to support our positions all day long. Let's focus on solutions. I acknowledge you dislike the RPMs and think they are overreaching. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote: Citation needed. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:38 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> wrote: Rebecca: You are simply wrong on the law. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2017, at 6:37 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote: How does stylization translate into the DNS? We know that stylized PARENTS and OWN YOUR POWER, to take two examples already discussed, provide no trademark rights in the words "parents" and "own your power." Accepting stylized versions, as Deloitte currently does, thus gives TMCH protection to words as to which there is no underlying trademark protection. "Text" is not an invention by ICANN. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> wrote: +1 Brian B. and J. Scott. The T Markey (stylized) example Kathy gave proves the point I am trying to make. There is nothing about that mark which would not translate into the DNS or would limit analysis of it by a trademark office on absolute grounds. So long as we continue to mash up Stylized marks with other design and composite marks, we simply don’t have a functional vocabulary to have this conversation. In other words, we have to use well established trademark vocabulary to talk about trademarks. We can’t invent our own language and then evaluate the TMCH rules through the new language rather than the language it was written in. Best, Paul From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jsevans@adobe.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 6:41 AM To: Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance) I have several problems with this proposal too. Kathy's conclusory statement about how he breadth of protection afforded by a composite or stylized mark is incorrect. Second, and more importantly, I am bothered by all the hyperbole and accusatory language like "breach", etc. this language is emotional and charged with negativity. I think it is inappropriate and not productive. J. Scott Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2017, at 1:10 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: Kathy, It’s not clear that the reference to “only marks registered as text” is necessarily incompatible with the “T. MARKEY” examples provided. The second, stylized version shows a “mark registered as text”. It simply happens to be text in a stylized (non-standard) form. In other words, a mark “registered as text” may not necessarily be exclusively the same as (in USPTO parlance) “a standard character mark”. It may therefore not be entirely accurate to suggest that if the TMCH allowed the second “T. MARKEY” example in stylized form (again, arguably a mark “registered as text”) versus the standard character version, it would somehow be “expand[ing] existing trademark rights”. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:12 AM To: icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance) Hi Paul, Apologies. I saw your thanks, but not your notes farther down. (For those of us skimming hundreds of emails, feel free to use use red/green/stars/asterisks to designate comments...) I caught it on a re-read... Quick note that the purpose of this recommendation is to share what is clearly before the Working Group: that rules created for the Trademark Clearinghouse process are not being followed. The goal is not to delve into motive or intent, but rather compliance and review. The actions of our TMCH database provider, as an ICANN contractor, must follow and comply with the rules as set out by the ICANN Community. If we want to change the rules, that's fine; we can do it by consensus. But until that happens, the rules adopted unanimously by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board are the policy. It's not for third parties to make their own or follow a different set. Paul, I'll respond to what I think are your questions below. My answers are preceded by => Best, Kathy On 4/19/2017 8:23 PM, icannlists wrote: Hi Kathy, Thank you so much for being willing to put forward a proposal. I know this is hard work (having put forward one on the GIs myself this week!) so it is appreciated. I am getting my initial thoughts on this out to the list on this as quickly as possible in the hopes that your proposal can be reworked a bit prior to our next WG call. A few thoughts: 1. We have learned that Deloitte is accepting the words of design marks, composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks, mixed marks, and any similar combination of characters and design (collectively “design marks”). We spent the better half of our last call untangling these definitions and to see them lumped in together again when these are not the same things makes the proposal impossible to read for we trademark folks. It would be great if we could include the clarity we achieved last week. ==> The category is meant to be comprehensive and international. 2. However, the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board expressly bar the acceptance of design marks into the TMCH Database. This is just inaccurate as written, mostly, but not entirely, by the way you have defined the terms. For example, I know of no GNSO Council prohibition that would reject a mark just because it is in a cursive font instead of plain block font. Can you either fix this or send us to a link supporting the claim? Perhaps if you unpack your collective definition, resulting a more precise claim and provide the link, that might give us something to talk about. As written now, I’ve just come to a halt on it because it doesn’t reflect the facts on the ground. ==> Paul, what I wrote is nearly a direct quote. Please see the "Expanded Discussion" discussion which follows in my recommendation directly below the opening section and explains exactly where this sentence comes from and what it references. I'm happy to paste some of this discussion here too. The STI Final Report (adopted by GNSO Council and ICANN Board) stated: “The TC Database should be required to include nationally or multinationally registered “text mark” trademarks, from all jurisdictions, (including countries where there is no substantive review). (The trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because “design marks” provide protection for letters and words only within the context of their design or logo and the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing trademark rights.) Emphasis added. Section 4.1, National or Multinational Registered Marks, https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.... ==> The words mean exactly what they say - only marks registered as text can be registered into the Trademark Clearinghouse; nothing that "provide[s] protection for letters and words only within the content of their design or logo." It states why: "the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing trademark rights." The issue was the balancing of underlying concept adopted here as part of the rights of trademark owners and the rights of current and future registrants. Domain names are text based. ==> We certainly meant to differentiate a trademark in a "cursive font instead of a plain text font." That's the whole purpose for Section 4.1's text, and the unusual extra step of including the explanation right next to it. Those of us who worked on this section (including myself and Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, whose PhD became the book The Current State of Domain Name Regulation: Domain Names as Second Class Citizens in a Mark-Dominated World) spent a lot of time on this issue. In evaluating it, the STI Final Report followed the guidance of experts such as those at the US Trademark Office regarding the different representation of marks: [USPTO Representation of Mark] "During the application process for a standard character mark, the USPTO will depict the mark in a simple standardized typeface format. However, it is important to remember that this depiction does not limit or control the format in which you actually "use" the mark. In other words, the rights associated with a mark in standard characters reside in the wording (or other literal element, e.g., letters, numerals, punctuation) and not in any particular display. Therefore, registration of a standard character mark would entitle you to use and protect the mark in any font style, size, or color. It is for this reason that a standard character mark can be an attractive option for many companies." "The stylized/design format, on the other hand, is appropriate if you wish to register word(s) by themselves or combined to form a phrase of any length and/or letter(s) having a particular stylized appearance, a mark consisting of a design element, or a combination of stylized wording and a design. Once filed, any design element will be assigned a “design code,” as set forth in the Design Search Code Manual." "Here is an example of a standard character mark: <image001.jpg>" "Here are some examples of special form marks: <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> <image004.jpg>" Quotes above from https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uspto.g... The rest of the recommendation follows from these finding. Again, this not a matter of a good job or a bad job -- no value judgement is intended. Rather it is a compliance and review issue. Are the rules followed? The answer is no. Best, Kathy 3. Accordingly, Deloitte is currently in breach of the rules that ICANN adopted and must revise its practice to follow the ruls adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board for TMCH operation. In order to buy this conclusion, the premises have to be correct, but the premises (as mentioned in 1 and 2) are not close to ready. I have to suspend consideration of the conclusion contained in this paragraph due to the faulty syllogism we have in front of us. Maybe if you make the edits in 1 and 2 suggested, we can then examine whether or not your paragraph 3 conclusion is correct, partially correct, or incorrect. 4. Alternatively, the Working Group by Consensus may CHANGE the rules and present the GNSO Council and ICANN Board with an expanded set of rules that Deloitte, or any future TMCH Provider, must follow. I guess I don’t understand this. Are you saying that if Deloitte is not in breach by letting in marks written in cursive fonts, then the WG can by Consensus propose changes? I’m not sure that the two things are connected. 5. In all events, we have a BREACH SITUATION which must be remedied. Further details, information and explanation below. Same response as #3 above. Also, this really confused paragraph 4 for me further. It seemed like paragraph 4 indicated that if paragraph 3 were not accurate, consensus driven solutions would be possible (again not sure those two things are connected) but then you go on to say in 5 that conclusions in 3 are a foregone conclusion (thus obviating any perceivable need for paragraph 4). I’m sure other thoughts will come to me as we dig in to either this version or an amended version, but these were the issues that jumped out at me right away. If you could respond to the full list on this as soon as practical, I would appreciate it. Best, Paul From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:18 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance) Hi All, As promised, I am resubmitting a new version of my earlier recommendation. It now addresses issues from Question #7 (Design Marks) and #16 (Appropriate Balance). I submit this recommendation to the Working Group in my capacity as a member and not as a co-chair. Text below and also attached as a PDF. Best, Kathy ------------------------------------------------------ Design Mark Recommendation for Working Group - for Question #7 and Question #16 of TMCH Charter Questions (#7, How are design marks currently handled by the TMCH provider?; and #16, Does the scope of the TMCH and the protections mechanisms which flow from it reflect the appropriate balance between the rights of trademark holders and the rights of non-trademark registrants?) We (the RPM Working Group) have found a problem: 1. We have learned that Deloitte is accepting the words of design marks, composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks, mixed marks, and any similar combination of characters and design (collectively “design marks”). 2. However, the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board expressly bar the acceptance of design marks into the TMCH Database. 3. Accordingly, Deloitte is currently in breach of the rules that ICANN adopted and must revise its practice to follow the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board for TMCH operation. 4. Alternatively, the Working Group by Consensus may CHANGE the rules and present the GNSO Council and ICANN Board with an expanded set of rules that Deloitte, or any future TMCH Provider, must follow. 5. In all events, we have a BREACH SITUATION which must be remedied. Further details, information and explanation below. Expanded Discussion A. Expressly Outside the TMCH Rules Adopted by the GNSO Council & ICANN Board The GNSO Council & ICANN Board-adopted rules (based on the STI Final Report and IRT Recommendations) that were very clear about the type of mark to be accepted by the Trademark Clearinghouse: “4.1 National or Multinational Registered Marks The TC Database should be required to include nationally or multinationally registered “text mark” trademarks, from all jurisdictions, (including countries where there is no substantive review).” https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.... Further, the adopted rules themselves are very clear about the Harm of putting design marks into the TMCH Database: “[Also 4.1] (The trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because “design marks” provide protection for letters and words only within the context of their design or logo and the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing trademark rights.) The Applicant Guidebook adopted the same requirements, as it must and should, namely: “3.2:Standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse 3.2.1 Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all jurisdictions” Nonetheless, and in violation of the express rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board and placed into the Applicant Guidebook, TMCH Provider Deloitte is accepting into the TMCH database words and letters it has extracted from composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks, composite marks and mixed marks. Deloitte is removing words and letters from designs, patterns, special lettering and other patterns, styles, colors, and logos which were integral to the trademark as accepted by the national or regional trademark office. B. Harm from the Current Form The harm from this acceptance is that it violates the rules under which Deloitte is allowed to operate. It creates a situation in which Deloitte is operating under its own authority, not that of ICANN and the ICANN Community. Such action, in violation of rules clearly adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board and written into the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook, gives too much power to Deloitte -- a contractor of ICANN, to make its own rules and adopt its own protocol without regard to the scope, breadth and reach of the governing rules. It is the type of misconduct anticipated by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board, and why the rules demand that ICANN hold a close relationship with the TMCH Provider by contract to allow close oversight and correction of misinterpretation or failure to follow the rules. (See, 3.1 in Relationship with ICANN, Special Trademark Issues Review Team Recommendations). C. Presumption of Trademark Validity Does Not Extend to Non-Stylized Version of the Registration Marks Further, words and letters within a composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks, and mixed marks are protected within the scope of the designs, logos, lettering, patterns, colors, etc. That's not a Working Group opinion, that's a legal opinion echoed through case law and UDRP decisions. In WIPO UDRP Decision Marco Rafael Sanfilippo v. Estudio Indigo, Case No. D2012-1064, the Panel found: “Complainant has shown that it owns two trademark registrations in Argentina. The Panel notes that both registrations are for “mixed” marks, where each consists of a composition made of words and graphic elements, such as stylized fonts, a roof of a house, etc. See details of the registrations with drawings at section 4 above. “As explained on the INPI website, “[m] ixed (marks) are those constituted by the combination of word elements and figurative elements together, or of word elements in stylized manner.” Accordingly, the protection granted by the registration of a mixed mark is for the composition as a whole, and not for any of its constituting elements in particular. Thus, Complainant is not correct when he asserts that it has trademark rights in the term “cabañas” (standing alone), based on these mixed trademark registrations.” Similarly, in the US, federal courts have found that the presumption of trademark validity provided by registration does not extend to the non-stylized versions of the registration marks. See e.g., Neopost Industrie B.V. v. PFE Intern., Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 669 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (registration of stylized mark didn’t extend protection to nonstylized uses); Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 95 F.Supp.3d 350, (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (dealing with special form mark whose words were unprotectable absent stylization), aff’d, Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 659 Fed.Appx. 55 (2d. Cir. 2016). D. Beyond the Scope of the TMCH Protection that the GNSO Council and ICANN Board Agreed to Provide Trademark Owners. As has been pointed out in our Working Group calls, the STI evaluations and IRT evaluations were long and hard and both groups decided in their recommendations to protect only the word mark – the text itself when the text was registered by itself. Neither allowed for the extraction of a word or letters from amidst a pattern, style, composite or mixed marks; neither created a process for doing so; neither accorded the discretion to the TMCH Provider (now Deloitte) to adopt any processes to handle this process independently. The STI clearly elaborated its reasoning: that extracting a word or letters from a larger design, gives too many rights to one trademark owner over others using the same words or letters. As clearly elaborated in the STI Recommendations and adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board (unanimously), it would be an unfair advantage for one trademark owner over others using the same words or letters. Specifically: “(The trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because “design marks” provide protection for letters and words only within the context of their design or logo and the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing trademark rights.)” To the extent that Deloitte as a TMCH Provider is operating within its mandate, and the limits of the rules and contract imposed on it, it may not take steps to expand existing trademark rights. The rights, as granted by national and regional trademark offices are rights that expressly include the patterns, special lettering and other styles, colors, and logos that are a part of the trademark granted by the Trademark Office and certification provided by each Trademark Office and presented to the Trademark Clearinghouse. II. Breach and Correction Accordingly, Deloitte is in breach of the rules that ICANN adopted and must revise its practice to go to follow the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board. Deloitte’s extraction of words and letters from patterns, special lettering, styles, colors and logos, as outlined above, violates the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board for the Trademark Clearinghouse operation. Bringing Deloitte’s operation of the TMCH – and its terms and requirements - rules does not require a consensus of the Working Group. Rather, it is a fundamental aspect of our job as a Working Group, as laid out by the GNSO Council in our charter, to review the operation of the Trademark Clearinghouse in compliance with its rules. As Deloitte is not operating in compliance with its rules in this area, it is in breach and must come into compliance. The excellent work of the Working Group in this area, and finding this problem through hard work and research, should be sufficient for ICANN Staff to act in enforcement of its contract and our rules. Point it out clearly and directly to Deloitte, to ICANN Board and Staff, and to the ICANN Community is one small additional step the Working Group might take. Alternatively, the Working Group by consensus may CHANGE the rules and present to the GNSO Council and ICANN Board a new set of standards by which Deloitte (or any future TMCH provider) may use to accept the design and stylized marks currently barred by the rules. But such a step would require a change to the ICANN rules under which the Trademark Clearinghouse operate, and then acceptance by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board. ICANN contractors do not have the unilateral power to make their own rules or to change the rule that are given them. ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. World IP Day 2017 – Join the conversation Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int%2Fipday&data... Facebook: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2Fworldi... World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...