<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Anyone still wants to talk about this on the merit?<br>
<br>
I didn't think so. Thx robin.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/03/2013 1:15 AM, Robin Gross
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:603BAB1E-8C75-44A0-8CC6-057B4C9563E4@ipjustice.org"
type="cite">
<div>It was revealed today during ICANN's new gtld webinar that
ICANN is in fact creating rights to much more than the TM+50
derivations of that mark in its trademark clearinghouse. The
fine print of this new right reads closer to "trademark + 50
derivations of that mark <b><i>for each trademark label".</i></b> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So for example, for big brand companies like Apple, who will
have a trademark registration in 30 countries for the word IPOD,
ICANN will be assigning each of those separate registrations for
the same trademark a new "trademark label", and <i>each
trademark label</i> will be allowed to block registrations of
the trademark +50 derivations.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So in the Apple/IPOD example, Apple will be able block
registrations for the TM + 1500 derivations of that mark (30
countries x 50 derivations = 1500). And ICANN staff
confirmed that this is how staff's policy is designed to work
on the webinar today.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So this very practical example shows how half-baked staff's
proposal truly is. Had the community ever been allowed to
develop this proposal, these little "oopsies" could have been
avoided. Of course it isn't an "oopsy" for the TM lobbyists
who created the proposal - its a gigantic windfall of rights
that exist no where in law, obtained no community consensus,
and chill the speech of thousands of other lawful uses of a
word.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This very important distinction between a trademark and
trademark label shows how big brands will in fact be able to
block thousands of unrelated, lawful expression in the DNS.
But ICANN promised that it won't be creating new rights with
its policies, so I guess we don't have to worry and should
trust them....<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Sigh,</div>
<div>Robin</div>
<div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:
separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -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="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: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</a>
e: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a></div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>