ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

FW: Comments on DAG 4

  • To: <4gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: FW: Comments on DAG 4
  • From: "Speed, Clare" <Clare.Speed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:26:30 +0100

Dear Sirs

> We have serious concerns that proposed TM protections remain weak and 
> ineffective. 
> We feel that the current proposal for a Trademark Clearinghouse is that it is 
> not a rights protection mechanism - now little more than a database.
> Specific issues
> Clearing-house:
> 1.  Clarify terminology > "> substantive review > "> or > "> substantive 
> examination> ">  to > "> examination on absolute grounds.> ">   This should 
> address the problem of applicants for Gtlds basing applications/objections on 
> the basis of TM registrations for purely descriptive words, obtained in 
> countries which conduct no examination on absolute grounds.
> 2.    Standardise the requirement for registries for claims and sunrise so 
> that they are the same.  The Trademark Claims and Sunrise services - in their 
> present form do nothing to reduce the number of domains being registered in 
> bad faith.  In order to be effective, the services should be mandatory both 
> pre-launch and post-launch.
> 3.    Widen the definition of "identical match" to encompass "obvious 
> misspellings" eg Yahooo, Koddak.  In practice, most cases of TM infringement 
> relate to misspellings, rather than pure identical matches (a review of the 
> decided UDRP cases supports this claim).  Without this, the effect of 
> Clearing-house as a rights protection mechanism is weakened so as to be 
> virtually non-existent.
> URS:
> 4.    Review the URS proposal in DAG4 > ->  with all the alterations, it has 
> been eroded from being an immediate and helpful take-down service for the 
> most blatant infringements to a weaker version of the UDRP (cheaper but no 
> speedier and weak means of redress ie no means of transferring the domain to 
> the complainant).
> 5.    Clarify what is meant by requirement for the Registry operator to have 
> engaged in > "> affirmative conduct> ">  > ->  if the threshold is too high, 
> then risk is that the usefulness of the PDDRP as a rights protection 
> mechanism is in doubt.
> In our view, the overarching TM issues have not been resolved.  It would not 
> be a backwards step to re-form the IRT - it is certainly the case that 
> changes are needed and the IRT (a body with legal knowledge and practical TM 
> law experience) is well-placed to advise in this area.
> Clare Speed
> Trade Mark Attorney
> D +44 (0)1753 446744  M+44 (0)7967 575784 
> Reckitt Benckiser Group plc, 103-105 Bath Road 
> Slough, Berkshire SL1 3UH, United Kingdom 
> T +44 (0) 1753 217800 F +44 (0) 1753 217899 
> www.rb.com

P Please Consider the Environment before printing this Email
This email was sent from within the http://www.reccol.com/ This email (and any 
attachments or hyperlinks within it) may contain information that is 
confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you 
are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not entitled to use, 
disclose, distribute, copy, print, disseminate or rely on this email in any 
way. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender 
immediately by telephone or email and destroy it, and all copies of it.
We have taken steps to ensure that this email (and any attachments) are free 
from computer viruses and the like. However, it is the recipient's 
responsibility to ensure that it is actually virus free. Any emails that you 
send to us may be monitored for the purposes of ascertaining whether the 
communication complies with the law and our policies.

JPEG image

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy