Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It still seems as though we are 'putting the cart before the horse'.

I don't believe there has been a determinative showing that existing  
RPM's are inadequate to protect legitimate interests.  Did this group  
decide at some point to grant new privileges and now just trying to  
figure out 'who' gets these special privileges?  If so, when was that  
decision made?
Thanks,
Robin


On Mar 1, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:

> All,
> we have discussed the question of qualification criteria (again)  
> during our last call, as you will recall.
> What we have on the table at the moment are the two proposals below.
>
> Do you think we can merge them or come up with a new set of criteria?
>
> Following the last call, let me also remind you that these criteria  
> are the first hurdle to be taken qualify for the protections. #
> We discussed that there might be additional criteria (admission  
> criteria) for the protection mechanism in question.
> I guess Alan was the first to make the point during the call. Can I  
> ask all of you (and Alan in particular :-)) to think of whether and  
> what additional criteria you would like to set up as a second  
> hurdle for admission to the protections?
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
> Here come the two sets of qualification criteria:
>
> 1. What I amalgamated from Mary's proposal and our previous  
> discussions:
>
> Organizations that serve the global public interest, that are  
> international in scope and operations, and whose primary mission is  
> of such public importance that some form of special protection for  
> its name and acronym can be justified
> Meeting two of the following criteria is deemed to be sufficient  
> evidence of the above requirements for an organization to be  
> eligible for protections. The protection encompasses the name and  
> the acronym of the respective organization as well as designations  
> that - as the case may be - are explicitly mentioned in a treaty as  
> a protected designation.
> - Protection by treaty
> - Protection in multiple national jurisdictions (either by virtue  
> of a specific law or treaty protection that is enforceable in a  
> multiple jurisdictions without the requirement of a specific enactment
> - Mission serving the global public interest
> - inclusion in the Ecosoc list
>
> 1. What Mary/Jim have recently submitted:
>
> “It seems to me that what we are striving to get to is a minimum  
> standard to qualify for special protections (of whatever nature),  
> and that many of those that have been suggested already, e.g.  
> treaties, national laws, organizational mandates etc., are a form  
> of proxy for the vague concept that:
>   "an organization [must] be
>
> · international in scope and operations, and
>
> · its primary mission be of such public importance
>
> · that it receives multilateral or multinational protection beyond  
> ordinary trademark laws, and
> · that some form of special protection for its name and acronym can  
> be justified."



IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx