[council] FW: [gnso-sti] FW: Re: Clearinghouse statement

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

All,
 
With apologies for duplication to those who are subscribe to or read the
STI list, I am forwarding a message posted on behalf of IPC leadership
and the IPC STI representatives.
 
Given the importance of this issue and the potential ramifications, I
wanted to make certain you are all aware of it.
 
K

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:57 AM
To: 'GNSO STI'
Subject: [gnso-sti] FW: Re: Clearinghouse statement



Dear All,

Please find the attached statement from the IPC.

 

Best Regards,

Margie

 

From: Mark V. B. Partridge [mailto:mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:48 AM
To: Margie Milam
Cc: mcgradyp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: Clearinghouse statement

 

Margie,

 

I'm not sure if this went to entire STI list.  Would you please see that
it does.  Thanks.

 

Mark

 



 


Mark V.B. Partridge
Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive - Suite 5000 - Chicago, IL  60606
T (312) 554-8000 Direct (312) 554-7922 F (312) 554-8015
mpartridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mpartridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>     
www.pattishall.com <http://www.pattishall.com/> 



************************************************************************
***
The preceding message and any attachments may contain confidential
information protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. You may
not forward this message or any attachments without the permission of
the sender. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please
reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then
delete it. Nothing in this email message, including the typed name of
the sender and/or this signature block, is intended to constitute an
electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is
included in the message.
************************************************************************
***

--- Begin Message ---

• To: "GNSO STI" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>, "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: Clearinghouse statement
• From: "Mark V. B. Partridge" <mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 22:18:35 -0500
• In-reply-to: <24C21F9A3196E645A13FF8204E5BD913093F580E@CHI-EXCH03.gtlaw.com>
• References: <24C21F9A3196E645A13FF8204E5BD913093F580E@CHI-EXCH03.gtlaw.com>
• Thread-index: Acp0H0byY6mzrVCsTO2DpWcwoh2JGg==
• Thread-topic: 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.
 
 
 

--- End Message ---