ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

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


Thanks for the heads-up Kristina.

At this stage, do we know if the STI is actually planning to propose the 
limitations mentioned in its final report? I'm only asking because I don't 
really see what action can be taken around any of the STI stuff until we see 
their final report...

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 3 déc. 2009 à 16:01, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> 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
>  
> <ATT00001.bmp>
>  
> 
> 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    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.
> ***************************************************************************
> 
> De : "Mark V. B. Partridge" <mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date : 3 décembre 2009 04:18:35 HNEC
> À : "GNSO STI" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>, "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
> Objet : Rép : 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.
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



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