Dear all, This would be the situation up till now of the discussions regarding Olimpic and Red Cross protection. Today will be the last conference before Costa Rica. Please let me know if you have any comment. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Fecha: 17 de febrero de 2012 23:27:58 GMT-02:00 Para: "Jim Bikoff" <jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>, <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>, <gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>> Asunto: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Summing up Option 7 Thanks Jim. That answers my question. Chuck From: Jim Bikoff [mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:22 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff (Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>); gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: Summing up Option 7 Chuck, I am suggesting that. The protection granted we believe applies to identical matches whether or not the names are registered by the protected entities. Best, Jim Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T ________________________________ From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:58:10 +0000 To: Jim Bikoff<jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com>>; Neuman, Jeff (Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>)<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>; gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org><gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Summing up Option 7 I have one question Jim: Are you suggesting that an exact match of one of the names should not be allowed to be registered by another entity even if the RC or IOC does not elect to register the names? Chuck From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jim Bikoff Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:22 PM To: Neuman, Jeff (Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>); gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summing up Option 7 Jeff, This note, like yours, is made not as an IPC member, but rather in my individual capacity. This note includes the Olympic and Red Cross terms, although we understand that the IRC will submit its own comments on the options. The first parts of Option 7 look appropriate as you have summarized them, i.e.: "Option 7: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names� meaning: a) The names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable. b) Applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this initial review." In section c), the core issue is, if an application fails to pass initial string similarity review, what standard should be used for an applicant to try to overcome the adverse review? I suggest: (1) If the applied-for TLD matches any of the terms in 2.2.1.2.3 (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC/RC. (2) If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the terms in 2.2.1.2.3, but fails initial string similarity review with one of those protected terms, the applicant may attempt to: (a) obtain a letter of non-objection from the IOC or Red Cross; or (b) claim that it has a legitimate interest in the string; and (c) explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, the Red Cross, or any Olympic or Red Cross activity. (d) A determination in favor of the applicant under this provision would not preclude the IOC, the Red Cross, or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination. {Explanation: In (b), a claim of "legitimate interest" would encompass a broad range of attempted justifications (including, as you have noted,"traditional knowledge and cultural heritage,"), without unduly suggesting that the applicant has "rights," or that the claim of legitimacy would prevail over the protected terms. A showing of ordinary trademark rights would not typically suffice to overcome the protections afforded the Olympic and Red Cross marks, because they are afforded superior legislative protection that trumps ordinary trademark rights. This was enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. United States Olympic Committee and International Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987). See also the Greek Statute Article 3 Law 2598/1998, a translation of which is attached, reserving the right to use the terms "Olympic" and "Olympiad" to the Olympic Committee. In (c), by the same token, the IOC and Red Cross are afforded a high level of statutory protection against dilution of their trademarks through use by unauthorized parties, even in the absence of confusing similarity. See e.g., San Francisco Arts & Athletics, supra. So a showing that an applied-for TLD is not confusingly similar to a protected string would not, standing alone, overcome an initial refusal. If, on the other hand, in an exceptional case, an applicant can demonstrate that it has an established legitimate interest in its applied-for TLD string, and that the TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, the Red Cross, or any Olympic or Red Cross activity, then that might constitute an appropriate basis for an appeal, to be considered on a case by case basis. In (d), the provisions allowing an applicant to seek recourse from an adverse initial string similarity review permit the applicant to express its claims fully. These provisions should not be construed to imply that an applicant's claims would necessarily prevail over the protected terms, nor should they be construed to prejudice, restrict or diminish in any way the IOC 's, Red Cross' or other interested parties' ability to enforce their legal rights and contest an application.} Best regards, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgbdc.com> ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est� dirigido �nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci�n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est� prohibida cualquier utilizaci�n, difusi�n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec�ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci�n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol�tica de Seguridad de la Informaci�n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.