RE: [gnso-sti] Rule 56 - some suggestions

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed. 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

Fax: +92 21 5655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

 

From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 8:19 PM
To: Zahid Jamil; 'GNSO STI'
Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] Rule 56 - some suggestions

 

Dear Zahid,

Thank you very much for taking the lead on re-wording Rule 56 and for using
language that is also understandable by the non-American community. I think
your language makes it much clearer.

One point, however, that I think we need to change: in your document you
have inserted "and evidence that the domain name was registered and/or is
being used abusively to infringe the trademark". For compatibility reasons
with the URS and the UDRP elements, I believe that we need to say: "and
evidence that the domain name was registered and is being used abusively to
infringe the trademark". Basically, I suggest we remove the word 'or' from
this section. Throughout the UDRP practice, it has always been bad faith
registration AND use; I suggest we stick to this requirement, especially
since we use the UDRP language as a template for much of the URS.

Thank you very much

Best
Konstantinos



On 04/12/2009 04:54, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As promised on the last URS call, attached is my attempt at the language of
Rule 56 which is under discussion.
 

Sincerely,
 
 
Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 

Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.




-- 
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Lecturer in Law,
GigaNet Membership Chair,
University of Strathclyde,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT,
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
email: k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx