RE: [gnso-sti] RE: Clearinghouse statement

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

That’s a tough one and depends on whether you believe an ordinary person 
receiving an IP Claim will understand the significance of getting a claim from 
someone that has a BENELUX registration for example.  Will they truly 
understand that the entity makes the claim (which has been validated by a 
Clearinghouse) may not really have the rights they claim they have?

But assume that I feel the same way about both, what would be your response?  

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy



________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

 

 

From: McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:20 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx; 
Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] RE: Clearinghouse statement
Importance: High

 

Jeff,

 

Before Mark and I respond, can I ask a clarifying question?  Do you feel the 
same way about both Sunrise and IP Claims, or just Sunrise?  Thanks.

 

Regards,

Paul

Paul D. McGrady, Jr. 
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 
Chicago, IL 60601 
312 456 8426 tel 
312 899 0407 fax 
mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxx 
Assistant:  Loyanna Grierson (312) 236-4952 Direct Dial (312) 456-8435 
Facsimile griersonl@xxxxxxxxx 

Links: www.paulmcgrady.com <http://www.paulmcgrady.com/>  and 
www.mcgradyondomainnames.com <http://www.mcgradyondomainnames.com/> 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

     Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by 
the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice 
contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise 
specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be 
used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code 
or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters 
addressed herein.

 

     The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and 
confidential information.  It is intended only for the use of the person(s) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are hereby notified 
that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original 
message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to 
postmaster@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:postmaster@xxxxxxxxx> .

  

________________________________

 

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:06 AM
To: Mark V. B. Partridge; GNSO STI; Margie Milam
Cc: J. Scott Evans
Subject: [gnso-sti] RE: Clearinghouse statement
Importance: High

Mark,

I do not really understand the following sentence:  “The proper solution for 
concerns about the scope and validity of registrations is to record all 
registrations of national or multi-national effect, and to deal with questions 
of scope and validity through notice, disclosure, challenge procedures and 
filing deadlines.”

 

The bottom line is that I am not so concerned what is inside of the 
Clearinghouse.  I know the NCSG may have some concerns, but the registries do 
not necessarily have a strong opinion.  However, we should not be forced to 
give recognition in a Sunrise Period or an IP Claims process to registrations 
in countries that do not undergo substantive review.  If I am launching a new 
generic TLD like “.web”, I should not have to accept ENOM’s trademark 
registration for .Web in the Benelux countries for example in a Sunrise giving 
them the first right to that name.  How does that relate to “scope, validity 
through notice, disclosure, challenge procedures and filing deadlines.” 


So, I will ask the direct question, will the IPC position allow me as a 
registry to refuse to recognize trademark registrations (in a Sunrise Process 
or IP Claims process) in countries that do not do a substantive review even if 
they are allowed to be in the Clearinghouse.


This is a fundamental question for me.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

 

 

From: Mark V. B. Partridge [mailto:mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:19 PM
To: 'GNSO STI'; Margie Milam
Subject: Re: Clearinghouse statement

 

Dear Members of the STI:

 

Your attention is invited to the following statement on behalf of the IPC 
leadership and STI representatives for consideration in connection with our 
telephone conference on the Clearinghouse on December 3, 2009.

 

Cordially,

 

Mark Partridge

 

>>>>>>>>>> 

 

The STI is currently considering a proposal advocated by the NCSG 
representatives to the STI that would limit the trademark registration data 
included in the Clearinghouse to trademark registrations from countries that 
undertake substantive review.

 

This proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the IRT, and the IPC is 
strongly opposed to limiting the Clearinghouse in that manner.  A large number 
of developing and developed countries, including most of Europe, do not engage 
in substantive review on relative grounds.  It is a serious problem and unwise 
for ICANN to treat such systems in the Clearinghouse as being inferior or to 
disinfranchise registrants from these countries from participation in the 
Clearinghouse.  This would particularly prejudice small businesses and 
not-for-profits who may only budget for a limited number of registrations in 
their country of origin, rather than a global registration program.  

 

Instead, the Clearinghouse, at a minimum, should include registrations of 
national or multinational effect, as recommended by the IRT.  The proper 
solution for concerns about the scope and validity of registrations is to 
record all registrations of national or multi-national effect, and to deal with 
questions of scope and validity through notice, disclosure, challenge 
procedures and filing deadlines.

 

Reliance on the IRT report with respect to the URS standards is misplaced, as 
the URS is part of an overall dispute resolution system that accepts all types 
of trademark rights and merely limits the rights at issue in the URS where 
prior substantive review of registrations facilitates expedited proceedings.

 

 

 

________________________________