<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma; WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV>Hi everyone,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just to follow up on Robin's email - the public comment period actually extends to 24 May, BUT (and it's a big one) because the FINAL IRT report is also due on 24 May, only those comments actually received by 6 May can practically be considered for inclusion in the final report.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As such, either the Constituency as a whole, or even individual members, should feel free to submit their comments by 6 May. According to ICANN staff, comments can be sent to <A href="mailto:irtp-draft-report@icann.org">irtp-draft-report@icann.org</A> and reviewed at <A href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-draft-report/">http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-draft-report/</A>.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here are some issues that members might want to look out for as you go through the IRT report:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. The Globally Protected Marks List, the proposed IP Clearinghouse and the Rapid Suspension system - will they work? How would they (particularly the Rapid Suspension system) work with the existing UDRP without adding to or superseding it?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. The different levels of protection at the top levels and second levels - are they justified?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>3. Costs - both of setting up the proposed mechanisms and of associated events, e.g. appeals, evaluations etc.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>4. Confusion analysis - what should constitute a match so as to trigger any of the mechanisms suggested? How would this work with what ICANN has proposed for string confusion in the DAG?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>5. Technical and other issues - anything else that strikes you.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As you all know, I was asked to be on the IRT and have tried to be non-partisan while representing user interests as best I can. Like I mentioned on the Constituency call earlier today, although the rest of the IRT are mostly trademark lawyers and other "interested" parties, we have been able, for the most part, to discuss multiple sides of an issue and assert our [occasionally vastly divergent] viewpoints.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Nonetheless, I would urge you all to take some time to consider the implications of the IRT recommendations for the new gTLD space. If you are not able to make the 6 May deadline, please do send in comments by 24 May at least.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV>Mary </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>Professor of Law</DIV>
<DIV>Franklin Pierce Law Center</DIV>
<DIV>Two White Street</DIV>
<DIV>Concord, NH 03301</DIV>
<DIV>USA</DIV>
<DIV>Email: <A href="mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu">mwong@piercelaw.edu</A></DIV>
<DIV>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</DIV>
<DIV>Webpage: <A href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php</A></DIV>
<DIV>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <A href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></DIV><BR><BR>>>> Robin Gross <robin@IPJUSTICE.ORG> 5/5/2009 11:40 PM >>><BR>All,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Konstantinos has looked at the draft <A href="https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/attachments/trademark_protection:20090428172419-0-15172/original/IRT%252520Draft%252520Report%252520on%252520Trademark%252520Protection%252520Issues.pdf">recommendations</A> from the Intellectual Property Team working on create special mechanisms in the new gtld process to expand trademark rights on the Internet. Thank you very much, Konstantinos!!</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Please add to these points below and provide further comment on them as well so we can submit a comment before the deadline (which I think is Thursday).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thank you!</DIV>
<DIV>Robin</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>IRT Draft Report:</DIV>
<DIV><A href="https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/attachments/trademark_protection:20090428172419-0-15172/original/IRT%2520Draft%2520Report%2520on%2520Trademark%2520Protection%2520Issues.pdf">https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/attachments/trademark_protection:20090428172419-0-15172/original/IRT%2520Draft%2520Report%2520on%2520Trademark%2520Protection%2520Issues.pdf</A><BR>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>More Info:</DIV>
<DIV>https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?trademark_protection</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>Begin forwarded message:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" face=Helvetica color=#000000 size=3><B>From: </B></FONT><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" face=Helvetica size=3>Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" face=Helvetica color=#000000 size=3><B>Date: </B></FONT><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" face=Helvetica size=3>May 5, 2009 11:59:22 AM PDT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" face=Helvetica color=#000000 size=3><B>To: </B></FONT><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" face=Helvetica size=3>Robin Gross <robin@IPJUSTICE.ORG>, Mary Wong <MWong@PIERCELAW.EDU></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" face=Helvetica color=#000000 size=3><B>Subject: </B></FONT><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" face=Helvetica size=3><B>Comments on the IRT recommendation</B></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV><FONT face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Dear both,<BR><BR>Here are my thoughts on the IRT recommendation. I did not really have time to look at it thoroughly and only scanned it through considering the deadline is tomorrow. As you know I am writing a book on domain name regulation, which amongst other is a critique against the expansion of t/m law and the UDRP and I am planning to include an analysis of all these issues.<BR>Sorry for the mistakes in the comments – was in a rush to finish them. Tell me what you think and please feel free to add/delete anything. Mary where do we send them and is it with the normal process? <BR>Thank you and looking forward to hearing from both of you.<BR><BR>Best<BR><BR>Konstantinos<BR><BR>COMMENTS<BR><BR>...<FONT color=#0000ff>but not create additional legal rights (page 6): I think that the whole issue here is basically not to expand the existing ones - i would suggest the re-wording of this.<BR>The IRT should have also consulted various PTOs in order to ascertain whether the existence of a clearing's house and the criteria set for global marks adhere to traditional ones.<BR>The idea of asking the </FONT><FONT color=#0000fe>trademark </FONT><FONT color=#0000ff>owner to validate the existence of a mark once a year is expensive, cumbersome and bureaucratic. trademark rights can last indefinitely as long as the owner continues to use the mark to identify its goods or services. The term of a federal trademark is 10 years, with 10-year renewal terms. However, the USPTO requires that between the fifth and sixth year after the date of registration, the registrant must file an affidavit stating that the mark is still in use. If no affidavit is filed, the registration is cancelled. The USPTO does not remind the trademark owner of this deadline. to me the way the clearinghouse wants to operate contradicts this.<BR>if user protection is one of the main goals of the IRT i don't see in the list of benefactors (the list contains </FONT><FONT color=#0000fe>trademark</FONT><FONT color=#0000ff> owners, new gtld operators, registrars and ICANN) but not the consumers.<BR>the IRT should also clarify how it will deal with the international classification system in combination with the applications received and how it will determine which trademark deserves priority.<BR>also who is going to participate in the Clearing house?<BR><BR>Global Classification system: I think the criteria are very loose and 'convenient'. the test is very basic and will result in trademarks that are not considered famous under traditional standards to receive international recognition by virtue of their registration. the Dilution act for instance set a high bar for a </FONT><FONT color=#0000fe>trademark</FONT><FONT color=#0000ff> to be considered famous. The Federal Trademark Dilution Act suggests that the following factors should be used in considering whether a mark is famous (this list is not exhaustive):<BR>1. How distinct the mark is (either by being inherently distinctive or by having acquired secondary meaning).<BR>2. How long and to what extent the mark has been used with the connected goods and services.<BR>3. How much advertising and publicity there has been for the mark.<BR>4. How widespread, geographically, the mark has been used.<BR>5. What channels of trade are used for the mark’s associated goods and services.<BR>6. How well-recognized the mark is in the channels of trade used by the owner and the channels of trade used by the potentially diluting mark.<BR>7. How many similar marks are used by third parties, and the extent of such use.<BR>While each state may have its own standards for defining what qualifies as a famous trademark, these factors generally apply.<BR>URS: i don't understand why this should exist since the udrp is already in place. i think that they are trying to create a tier system of judiciary under the ICANN regime - this is very dangerous. from the reading it appears that the systems will be connected (see appeals sections) and this practice detaches the parties from courts even further. who will prefer the court option if there is the UDRP?<BR></FONT>-- <BR>Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<BR>Lecturer in Law,<BR>GigaNet Membership Chair,<BR>University of Strathclyde,<BR>The Lord Hope Building,<BR>141 St. James Road,<BR>Glasgow, G4 0LT,<BR>UK<BR>tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<BR>email: <A href="k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</A> <BR></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0">
<DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>IP JUSTICE</DIV>
<DIV>Robin Gross, Executive Director</DIV>
<DIV>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</DIV>
<DIV>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</DIV>
<DIV>w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline></SPAN><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>