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
|