Re: [gnso-sti] Questions raised on Clearinghouse Strawman; consensus?
- To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] Questions raised on Clearinghouse Strawman; consensus?
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:56:49 -0500
Two brief comments.
At 30/11/2009 12:56 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Many things passed quickly during the last Clearinghouse discussion,
including many new ideas,
presented by one person, disagreed by another, and then written up, we
found, as consensus.
So let's go back to a few issues we do not think have been decided, and
may block the process,
which, has come so far.
A. Marks need to come from jurisdictions a substantive evaluation and
verification. (That was an IRT idea.)
We may have discussed this to death in the meeting, but in case not,
I see the issue of what goes into the clearinghouse (appropriately
flagged of course) as being very different from what is judged to be
important in a URS (where to my un-schooled mind, a TM which has
undergone evaluation is quite different from one that has not).
B. Response to #2 and #6:
We/ NCSG does not support any specific requirement or language for
ancillary services. **Content of the Clearinghouse
is a policy issue, not an implementation detail.** We support ICANN
contracting for a separate and independent Trademark Clearinghouse
along the lines we discussed; all other databases and ancillary services
are a market detail.
C. Response to #7:
We don't recall discussing pre-registration for URS, and certainly not
to any level close to consensus. Detail sought.
AS I understood it from the IRT, one of the services the
Clearinghouse could offer was to tell a URS provider that it had
verified that a TM had been legitimately registered in a specific
jurisdiction and with specific characteristics. This would save the
URS provider significant time and expense (and they would presumably
pay for this service), and such pre-registration would reduce the
delay before a URS notice could be sent to the registrant (benefiting
the TM holder and giving more justification for paying the
Clearinghouse registration fee).
The URS provider would still have to satisfy itself that the
jurisdiction issuing the TM was one that it want to have faith in
regarding how rigorously they validated the mark (just as it would if
it did its own leg-work).
Great concern about the use of "consensus" here:
#6 Voluntary Pre-Launch Use of the Trademark Clearinghouse
Mandatory use to support pre-launch of a registry for either a sunrise
process or a IP Claims Service (no requirement that a registry use
both); Sunrise registrations should allow for specialized gTLDs to
restrict eligibility for sunrise registrations to fit the purpose of the
registry (example, .shoe could restrict sunrise to only trademark
registrations in class of goods and services related to shoes). No
requirement of use by existing registries since the mandatory use is
only for pre-launch activities.
#7 Voluntary Use of the Trademark Clearinghouse Post-Launch
Voluntary use as a pre-registration process for URS; no requirement
that the TC be used to support post-launch IP Claims;
TC may provide post launch IP Claims Service as a separate nonexclusive
service, with implementation details left to Staff to address possible
monopoly and competition concerns (such as making information available
to competitors); Report to indicate that registries should consider
providing post launch IP Claims protection for common law rights if it
fits the registry's purpose.