RE: [gnso-sti] RE: Clearinghouse statement
As one of those "ordinary people" (or at least I was before this process started a few weeks ago), I have a question. Will the Clearinghouse be able to definitively flag a registration as being from a jurisdiction that does NO validation. If the answer is yea, will they be in a legal position to phrase the Claims notice to reflect this? Alan At 03/12/2009 12:38 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: Thatâ??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?ÂJeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & PolicyThe 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 AMTo: Neuman, Jeff; mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxCc: 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 <mailto:mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxx>mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxxAssistant: Loyanna Grierson (312) 236-4952 Direct Dial (312) 456-8435 Facsimile <mailto:griersonl@xxxxxxxxx>griersonl@xxxxxxxxxLinks: <http://www.paulmcgrady.com/>www.paulmcgrady.com and <http://www.mcgradyondomainnames.com/>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 <mailto:postmaster@xxxxxxxxx>postmaster@xxxxxxxxx.----------From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, JeffSent: 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: â??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.â??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 â??.webâ??, I should not have to accept ENOMâ??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 â??scope, validity through notice, disclosure, challenge procedures and filing deadlines.â??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 & PolicyThe 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.----------
|