[gnso-sti] Rule 56
- To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-sti] Rule 56
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:59:42 -0500
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.
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);
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.
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.