Comments in-line below on Kathy's first point. More to follow on the other points. Greg On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:

Re: the trademark side of the table:

Under Composite Mark definition, in the USA section, there are two case quotes, but the rule itself is not present, and I would ask that it be added: *"However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties." * http://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1207_01_c_ii.html, USPTO Trademark of Examining Procedure.

​GSS: I agree that the extract needs to be put in context, but we're not there yet. First, these are not case quotes; they are quotes from the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, used by USPTO trademark examiners in examining applications. And this is from a section on analyzing likelihood of confusion between two marks, not a section defining composite marks per se. The "situation" referred to in the additional text chosen by Kathy is an analysis of the likelihood of confusion between two "composite marks" (each of which consist of designs and letters), and the "rule" being stated here is that while both marks must be considered in their entireties for the purpose of comparison, greater weight may be given to the dominant feature, which is often the wording..​ The rule that both marks should be considered in their entiretiesshould not be mistaken for a "rule" that a composite mark only provides protection for a mark in its entirety -- not the same thing, though some here clearly wish it were. And not the rule. This is probably not the best place to extract a definition of composite mark, and I'll look for a better section. But if we do use this section, the text of this section should be inserted in its entirety with cites removed (to avoid bulking this up too much): Often, the examining attorney must determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists between composite marks that consist of a design element combined with words and/or letters. Frequently, the marks at issue are similar in only one element. Although it is not proper to dissect a mark, if one feature of a mark is more significant than another feature, greater weight may be given to the dominant feature for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion. However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties. If a mark comprises both wording and a design, greater weight is often given to the wording, because it is the wording that purchasers would use to refer to or request the goods or services. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned, however, that "[t]here is no general rule as to whether letters or designs will dominate in composite marks; nor is the dominance of letters or design dispositive of the issue." The comparison of composite marks must be done on a case-by-case basis, without reliance on mechanical rules of construction. Here's the section in its entirety (with cites): Often, the examining attorney must determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists between composite marks that consist of a design element combined with words and/or letters. Frequently, the marks at issue are similar in only one element. Although it is not proper to dissect a mark, if one feature of a mark is more significant than another feature, greater weight may be given to the dominant feature for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion. *See, e.g.*, *In re Viterra Inc.*, 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); *Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc.*, 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983); *see also* *TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii) <https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e5475.html>*. However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties. *See Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U.*, 797 F.3d 1363, 1371, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2015); *In re Shell Oil Co.*, 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); *Massey Junior Coll., Inc. v. Fashion Inst. of Tech.*, 492 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 272, 273-74 (C.C.P.A. 1974) . If a mark comprises both wording and a design, greater weight is often given to the wording, because it is the wording that purchasers would use to refer to or request the goods or services. *See, e.g.*, *Viterra*, 671 F.3d at 1366, 101 USPQ2d at 1911; *In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd.*, 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1247 (TTAB 2010) ; *In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc.*, 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987) . The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned, however, that "[t]here is no general rule as to whether letters or designs will dominate in composite marks; nor is the dominance of letters or design dispositive of the issue." *In re Electrolyte Labs. Inc.*, 929 F.2d 645, 647, 16 USPQ2d 1239, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The comparison of composite marks must be done on a case-by-case basis, without reliance on mechanical rules of construction. *See, e.g., Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U.*, 797 F.3d at 1371-72, 116 USPQ2d at 1134-35 (holding that Board finding lacked substantial evidence for minimizing the literal element in composite mark); *Spice Islands, Inc. v. Frank Tea & Spice Co.*, 505 F.2d 1293, 184 USPQ 35 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (reversing TTAB’s holding that SPICE TREE with tree design, for garlic powder and minced onion, and SPICE ISLANDS with and without tree design, for seasoning herbs and spices, is not likely to cause confusion); *In re Covalinski*, 113 USPQ2d 1166 (TTAB 2014) (holding confusion unlikely between REDNECK RACEGIRL and design of large, double-letter RR configuration and registered mark RACEGIRL, even when used on in-part identical goods);*In re White Rock Distilleries Inc.*, 92 USPQ2d 1282 (TTAB 2009) (holding VOLTA for vodka infused with caffeine, and TERZA VOLTA and vine shoot design for wines, not likely to cause confusion); *In re Sun Supermarkets, Inc.*, 228 USPQ 693 (TTAB 1986) (holding applicant’s mark, SUN SUPERMARKETS with sun design, for retail supermarket services, and registrant’s marks, SUNSHINE and SUNRISE (both with sun designs), for retail grocery store services, likely to cause confusion). https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e5036.html ​ (this is a preferable cite, since it goes to the authoritative source and the current April 2017 version of the TMEP; the bitlaw cite seems to go to a 2015 version).​

Further, as Mary notes under "stylized mark," the Trademark Office confides that its definitions between stylized marks and marks with design elements are distinctions without difference: [from Mary's table] *USA: "No clear distinction, for definitional purposes at least, between a mark comprising stylized text only and a mark comprising stylized text with a design element." *

The key difference, of course, is the *"**registration of a standard character mark would entitle you to use and protect the mark in any font style, size, or color"* and the others don't. I look forward to our discussion today and note again that it is this clear distinction that original rules captured when they created the TMCH Database, TM Claims and Sunrise period.

Best, Kathy

On 5/2/2017 1:01 AM, Mary Wong wrote:

Dear all,

Staff has updated the table of open TMCH questions (on design marks, GIs and TMCH matching rules) with the new proposal on GIs submitted on Friday by Jonathan Agmon (see attached document). Given the ongoing Working Group discussions on the mailing list on some of these topics, we have not attempted to summarize the specific discussion items and sub-topics, but we will be happy to do so if this will be helpful.

Also attached is the staff-prepared glossary of terms relating to design marks and GIs, which we have updated slightly to note the new Amending Regulation in the EU concerning the definition of a trademark. We hope the glossary is helpful to everyone in distinguishing and/or defining many of the terms and usages around design/device/composite/figurative marks, collective and certification marks, GIs and appellations of origin, etc.

You may also wish to note that WIPO maintains a searchable database of the IP laws of many countries, which you can specify the country of search as well as the type of IP right (e.g. copyright, GIs, industrial design, patents, trademarks etc.) for which you are seeking the applicable legislation or treaty: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing listgnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

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

Replies in-line below. On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rebecca Tushnet < Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:

Greg, I haven't seen anyone claim that there is a "rule" that composite marks only protect the entirety of the mark, particularly with respect to the scope of the mark against similar but not identical mark.

​Rebecca, I agree with you that there is no such rule. As I read Kathy's statement, it appears to say exactly that, as she asked for the following "rule" (her word, not mine) to be inserted into the definition of composite marks: *"However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties."*​ Without the context of where this quote came from, it leaves the distinct impression that there is a rule that composite marks only protect the entirety of the mark, particularly when read together with Kathy's final paragraph, which says. "The key difference, of course, is the "registration of a standard character mark would entitle you to use and protect the mark in any font style, size, or color" and the others don't." The other don't ... what? Don't protect the mark in any font style, size or color other than the one claimed? Or don't protect the mark in every possible font style, size or color? It's not clear (this type of sentence construction drives many non-native-English speakers nuts, by the way)

Rather, from the registration of a composite mark, we simply don't know whether the text itself--the only element that can go into the TMCH--is protected. Maybe it is; maybe it isn't.

​It's hardly the toss-up that you imply it is. In virtually all cases, the text element of a composite mark is protected. The current TMCH rule, which excludes composite marks where the text is not dominant or separable, takes care of those fe cases where the text element is not protected, other than the "disclaimer" situation. I've proposed that marks where there is an express disclaimer of all text be kept out of the TMCH. In any event, composite marks are distinguished from stylized text marks, where it is clear that the text is protected. An

applicant for the TMCH should have to prove that the thing it seeks to insert into the TMCH, and to use in notices/Sunrise, is protected by a registration or court decision, not that it might be protected.

​The registration provides that proof, except for the very limited circumstances already kept out of the TMCH, noted above, and the disclaimer situation.​ The TMCH should not be in the business of re-examining trademark registrations.

This seems to me quite similar to the position many people are taking with respect to GIs.

​I don't see the similarity. With respect to GIs, the position I see many people taking is that GIs that are not registered as trademarks should not be placed in the TMCH (based on the underlying position that GIs are a discrete form of intellectual property, which are only given protection through trademark law in some jurisdictions, and only when they qualify for such protection). Greg ​

Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759

...

Comments in-line below on Kathy's first point. More to follow on the other points.

Greg

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:

...

Re: the trademark side of the table:

Under Composite Mark definition, in the USA section, there are two case quotes, but the rule itself is not present, and I would ask that it be added: "However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the

marks

...

must be considered in their entireties." http://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1207_01_c_ii.html, USPTO Trademark of Examining Procedure.

GSS: I agree that the extract needs to be put in context, but we're not there yet. First, these are not case quotes; they are quotes from the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, used by USPTO trademark examiners in examining applications. And this is from a section on analyzing likelihood of confusion between two marks, not a section defining composite marks per se.

The "situation" referred to in the additional text chosen by Kathy is an analysis of the likelihood of confusion between two "composite marks" (each of which consist of designs and letters), and the "rule" being stated here is that while both marks must be considered in their entireties for the purpose of comparison, greater weight may be given to the dominant feature, which is often the wording.. The rule that both marks should be considered in their entiretiesshould not be mistaken for a "rule" that a composite mark only provides protection for a mark in its entirety -- not the same thing, though some here clearly wish it were. And not the rule.

This is probably not the best place to extract a definition of composite mark, and I'll look for a better section. But if we do use this section, the text of this section should be inserted in its entirety with cites removed (to avoid bulking this up too much):

Often, the examining attorney must determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists between composite marks that consist of a design element combined with words and/or letters. Frequently, the marks at issue are similar in only one element. Although it is not proper to dissect a mark, if one feature of a mark is more significant than another feature, greater weight may be given to the dominant feature for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion. However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties.

If a mark comprises both wording and a design, greater weight is often given to the wording, because it is the wording that purchasers would use to refer to or request the goods or services. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned, however, that "[t]here is no general rule as to whether letters or designs will dominate in composite marks; nor is the dominance of letters or design dispositive of the issue."

The comparison of composite marks must be done on a case-by-case basis, without reliance on mechanical rules of construction.

Here's the section in its entirety (with cites):

Often, the examining attorney must determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists between composite marks that consist of a design element combined with words and/or letters. Frequently, the marks at issue are similar in only one element. Although it is not proper to dissect a mark, if one feature of a mark is more significant than another feature, greater weight may be given to the dominant feature for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties. See Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 1371, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Massey Junior Coll., Inc. v. Fashion Inst. of Tech., 492 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 272, 273-74 (C.C.P.A. 1974) .

If a mark comprises both wording and a design, greater weight is often given to the wording, because it is the wording that purchasers would use to refer to or request the goods or services. See, e.g., Viterra, 671 F.3d at 1366, 101 USPQ2d at 1911; In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1247 (TTAB 2010) ; In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: 1987)

...

. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned, however, that "[t]here is no general rule as to whether letters or designs will dominate in composite marks; nor is the dominance of letters or design dispositive of the issue." In re Electrolyte Labs. Inc., 929 F.2d 645, 647, 16 USPQ2d 1239, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

The comparison of composite marks must be done on a case-by-case basis, without reliance on mechanical rules of construction. See, e.g., Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d at 1371-72, 116 USPQ2d at 1134-35 (holding that Board finding lacked substantial evidence for minimizing the literal element in composite mark); Spice Islands, Inc. v. Frank Tea & Spice Co., 505 F.2d 1293, 184 USPQ 35 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (reversing TTAB’s holding that SPICE TREE with tree design, for garlic powder and minced onion, and SPICE ISLANDS with and without tree design, for seasoning herbs and spices, is not likely to cause confusion); In re Covalinski, 113 USPQ2d 1166 (TTAB 2014) (holding confusion unlikely between REDNECK RACEGIRL and design of large, double-letter RR configuration and registered mark RACEGIRL, even when used on in-part identical goods);In re White Rock Distilleries Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1282 (TTAB 2009) (holding VOLTA for vodka infused with caffeine, and TERZA VOLTA and vine shoot design for wines, not likely to cause confusion); In re Sun Supermarkets, Inc., 228 USPQ 693 (TTAB 1986) (holding applicant’s mark, SUN SUPERMARKETS with sun design, for retail supermarket services, and registrant’s marks, SUNSHINE and SUNRISE (both with sun designs), for retail grocery store services, likely to cause confusion).

https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e5036.html (this is a preferable cite, since it goes to the authoritative source and the current April 2017 version of the TMEP; the bitlaw cite seems to go to a 2015 version).

...

Further, as Mary notes under "stylized mark," the Trademark Office confides that its definitions between stylized marks and marks with

design

...

elements are distinctions without difference: [from Mary's table] USA: "No clear distinction, for definitional purposes at least, between a mark comprising stylized text only and a mark comprising stylized text with a design element."

The key difference, of course, is the "registration of a standard character mark would entitle you to use and protect the mark in any font style, size, or color" and the others don't. I look forward to our discussion today and note again that it is this clear distinction that original rules captured when they created the TMCH Database, TM Claims and Sunrise period.

Best, Kathy

On 5/2/2017 1:01 AM, Mary Wong wrote:

Dear all,

Staff has updated the table of open TMCH questions (on design marks, GIs and TMCH matching rules) with the new proposal on GIs submitted on Friday by Jonathan Agmon (see attached document). Given the ongoing Working Group discussions on the mailing list on some of these topics, we have not attempted to summarize the specific discussion items and sub-topics, but we will be happy to do so if this will be helpful.

Also attached is the staff-prepared glossary of terms relating to design marks and GIs, which we have updated slightly to note the new Amending Regulation in the EU concerning the definition of a trademark. We hope the glossary is helpful to everyone in distinguishing and/or defining many of the terms and usages around design/device/composite/figurative marks, collective and certification marks, GIs and appellations of origin, etc.

You may also wish to note that WIPO maintains a searchable database of the IP laws of many countries, which you can specify the country of search as well as the type of IP right (e.g. copyright, GIs, industrial design, patents, trademarks etc.) for which you are seeking the applicable legislation or treaty: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

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

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

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

Quick note, I did not choose the text, but worked off Mary's table... On 5/3/2017 10:34 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:

Comments in-line below on Kathy's first point. More to follow on the other points.

Greg

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>wrote:

Re: the trademark side of the table:

Under Composite Mark definition, in the USA section, there are two case quotes, but the rule itself is not present, and I would ask that it be added: *"However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties." *http://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1207_01_c_ii.html <http://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1207_01_c_ii.html>, USPTO Trademark of Examining Procedure.

​GSS: I agree that the extract needs to be put in context, but we're not there yet. First, these are not case quotes; they are quotes from the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, used by USPTO trademark examiners in examining applications. And this is from a section on analyzing likelihood of confusion between two marks, not a section defining composite marks per se.

The "situation" referred to in the additional text chosen by Kathy is an analysis of the likelihood of confusion between two "composite marks" (each of which consist of designs and letters), and the "rule" being stated here is that while both marks must be considered in their entireties for the purpose of comparison, greater weight may be given to the dominant feature, which is often the wording..​ The rule that both marks should be considered in their entiretiesshould not be mistaken for a "rule" that a composite mark only provides protection for a mark in its entirety -- not the same thing, though some here clearly wish it were. And not the rule.

This is probably not the best place to extract a definition of composite mark, and I'll look for a better section. But if we do use this section, the text of this section should be inserted in its entirety with cites removed (to avoid bulking this up too much):

Often, the examining attorney must determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists between composite marks that consist of a design element combined with words and/or letters. Frequently, the marks at issue are similar in only one element. Although it is not proper to dissect a mark, if one feature of a mark is more significant than another feature, greater weight may be given to the dominant feature for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion. However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties.

If a mark comprises both wording and a design, greater weight is often given to the wording, because it is the wording that purchasers would use to refer to or request the goods or services. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned, however, that "[t]here is no general rule as to whether letters or designs will dominate in composite marks; nor is the dominance of letters or design dispositive of the issue."

The comparison of composite marks must be done on a case-by-case basis, without reliance on mechanical rules of construction.

Here's the section in its entirety (with cites):

Often, the examining attorney must determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists between composite marks that consist of a design element combined with words and/or letters. Frequently, the marks at issue are similar in only one element. Although it is not proper to dissect a mark, if one feature of a mark is more significant than another feature, greater weight may be given to the dominant feature for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion. /See, e.g./,/In re Viterra Inc./, 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012);/Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc./, 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983);/see also/*TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii) <https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e5475.html>*. However, the fundamental rule in this situation is that the marks must be considered in their entireties./See Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U./, 797 F.3d 1363, 1371, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2015);/In re Shell Oil Co./, 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993);/Massey Junior Coll., Inc. v. Fashion Inst. of Tech./, 492 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 272, 273-74 (C.C.P.A. 1974) .

If a mark comprises both wording and a design, greater weight is often given to the wording, because it is the wording that purchasers would use to refer to or request the goods or services. /See, e.g./, /Viterra/, 671 F.3d at 1366, 101 USPQ2d at 1911; /In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd./, 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1247 (TTAB 2010) ; /In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc./, 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987) . The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned, however, that "[t]here is no general rule as to whether letters or designs will dominate in composite marks; nor is the dominance of letters or design dispositive of the issue." /In re Electrolyte Labs. Inc./, 929 F.2d 645, 647, 16 USPQ2d 1239, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

The comparison of composite marks must be done on a case-by-case basis, without reliance on mechanical rules of construction. /See, e.g., Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U./, 797 F.3d at 1371-72, 116 USPQ2d at 1134-35 (holding that Board finding lacked substantial evidence for minimizing the literal element in composite mark); /Spice Islands, Inc. v. Frank Tea & Spice Co./, 505 F.2d 1293, 184 USPQ 35 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (reversing TTAB’s holding that SPICE TREE with tree design, for garlic powder and minced onion, and SPICE ISLANDS with and without tree design, for seasoning herbs and spices, is not likely to cause confusion); /In re Covalinski/, 113 USPQ2d 1166 (TTAB 2014) (holding confusion unlikely between REDNECK RACEGIRL and design of large, double-letter RR configuration and registered mark RACEGIRL, even when used on in-part identical goods);/In re White Rock Distilleries Inc./, 92 USPQ2d 1282 (TTAB 2009) (holding VOLTA for vodka infused with caffeine, and TERZA VOLTA and vine shoot design for wines, not likely to cause confusion); /In re Sun Supermarkets, Inc./, 228 USPQ 693 (TTAB 1986) (holding applicant’s mark, SUN SUPERMARKETS with sun design, for retail supermarket services, and registrant’s marks, SUNSHINE and SUNRISE (both with sun designs), for retail grocery store services, likely to cause confusion).

https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e5036.html ​ (this is a preferable cite, since it goes to the authoritative source and the current April 2017 version of the TMEP; the bitlaw cite seems to go to a 2015 version).​

Further, as Mary notes under "stylized mark," the Trademark Office confides that its definitions between stylized marks and marks with design elements are distinctions without difference: [from Mary's table]***USA: "No clear distinction, for definitional purposes at least, between a mark comprising stylized text only and a mark comprising stylized text with a design element." *

The key difference, of course, is the *"**registration of a standard character mark would entitle you to use and protect the mark in any font style, size, or color"* and the others don't. I look forward to our discussion today and note again that it is this clear distinction that original rules captured when they created the TMCH Database, TM Claims and Sunrise period.

Best, Kathy

On 5/2/2017 1:01 AM, Mary Wong wrote:

...

Dear all,

Staff has updated the table of open TMCH questions (on design marks, GIs and TMCH matching rules) with the new proposal on GIs submitted on Friday by Jonathan Agmon (see attached document). Given the ongoing Working Group discussions on the mailing list on some of these topics, we have not attempted to summarize the specific discussion items and sub-topics, but we will be happy to do so if this will be helpful.

Also attached is the staff-prepared glossary of terms relating to design marks and GIs, which we have updated slightly to note the new Amending Regulation in the EU concerning the definition of a trademark. We hope the glossary is helpful to everyone in distinguishing and/or defining many of the terms and usages around design/device/composite/figurative marks, collective and certification marks, GIs and appellations of origin, etc.

You may also wish to note that WIPO maintains a searchable database of the IP laws of many countries, which you can specify the country of search as well as the type of IP right (e.g. copyright, GIs, industrial design, patents, trademarks etc.) for which you are seeking the applicable legislation or treaty: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/ <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/>.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

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

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