[gnso-sti] Rule 56

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

My understanding is the reference to Rule 56 in our strawman proposal 
was not a intention to us US law in the URS, nor to even say that the 
full details of Rule 56 applies to the URS. Rather, it was a 
shorthand to give the intent of what we wanted to say.
Given that, we really do need some actual words to be able to tell 
the rest of the world (not to mention the URS providers and 
examiners) what we mean.
Not being a lawyer, and therefore perhaps quite ignorant of some of 
the subtler issues, I will take a stab at this. If I have the intent 
right, I am sure it still needs significant re-wording. If I have 
misunderstood what is REALLY implied by Rule 56, then I turn it over 
to my legally-schooled colleagues.
Alan

------------------------

For a URS to be successful, the Examiner, based on:

a) the verified TM from a jurisdiction that performs substantial 
validation (including if applicable, its geographic limitations and 
class of service);
b) the domain name in question;
c) the contents of the web site or other evidence of the domain name usage; and
d) the registrant response (if received);

believes that:

1) (if a response was received) No evidence was presented to indicate 
that the use of the domain name in question is an appropriate and 
fair use the TM.
or

2) (if a response was not received) No defense can be imagined to 
indicate that the use of the domain name in question is an 
appropriate and fair use the TM.
In the absence of a clear belief of 1) or 2), the URS shall be rejected.