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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael:

Thanks for the clarification.  I was wondering why you were yelling at
me. :)

J.
  


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - draft IRTP Part B
Initial Report
From: "Michael Collins" <mc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 12, 2010 2:59 pm
To: "'Erdman, Kevin R.'" <Kevin.Erdman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
<Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>

  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 WWW.BAKERDANIELS.COM 300 N. MERIDIAN STREET, SUITE
2700 | INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204