RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - draft IRTP Part B Initial Report

["Michael Collins" <mc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kevin and all:

 

First, I did not write my last response in huge type. There must have been
some formatting issue with my Outlook. L Sorry.

 

I think that a hijacking victim would want to dispute the initial transfer,
not the reversal by ETRP. Either way are you really proposing no deadline in
cases where a Registrant does not notice a hijacking, theoretically allowing
an ETRP to be filed years after a transfer?

 

Best regards,

Michael Collins

 

From: Erdman, Kevin R. [mailto:Kevin.Erdman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:51 PM
To: Michael Collins; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - draft IRTP Part B Initial
Report

 

Michael and all:

 

The dispute portion of the ETRP only occurs after the transfer is reversed,
so for TDRP purposes there would have been a transfer within the last 60
days (the reverse transfer).

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________

Kevin R Erdman  T: 317.237.1029 | F: 317.237.8521 | C: 317.289.3934
Intellectual Property, Internet, and Information Attorney, Registered Patent
Attorney
BAKER & DANIELS LLP  <http://www.bakerdaniels.com/> WWW.BAKERDANIELS.COM 300
N. MERIDIAN STREET, SUITE 2700 | INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204