<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Pedro,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Thank you for highlighting the problems raised by the definition of “word mark.” I’m one of the authors of the Minority Statement that you referenced. The TMCH provider’s practice of stripping words out of marks that include other design
elements, and including those words in the database, effectively gives trademark holders the power to control registrations of common words, and other terms that simply are not trademarks when separated from their design elements. The definition in the report
effectively confers new trademark rights that national laws explicitly reject. That’s a serious problem, because the limitations on trademarks that contain common words are an important guarantor of free expression. Simply put, brands do not “own” common words,
and ICANN RPM policies should not be written as though they do. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I encourage you to call out this problem prominently in the NCSG’s comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Mitch Stoltz<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New";color:black">-- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New";color:black">Mitch Stoltz<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New";color:black">Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New";color:black"><a href="https://www.eff.org/donate" title="https://www.eff.org/donate"><span style="color:#000064">https://www.eff.org/join</span></a> | <a href="https://act.eff.org/"><span style="color:#000064">https://act.eff.org/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Pedro de Perdigão Lana <pedrodeperdigaolana@GMAIL.COM><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>Pedro de Perdigão Lana <pedrodeperdigaolana@GMAIL.COM><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, May 3, 2021 at 1:58 PM<br>
<b>To: </b><NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Discussion] [Public Comment] GNSO Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Phase 1 Final Recommendations<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear NCSG,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As suggested by Kathy, there is a relevant discussion about a certain topic in the GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Annex D of the <a href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-1-proposed-24nov20-en.pdf">
Final Report</a> (starting at p. 131), we can find the Working Group Members’ Minority Statement on TMCH Final Recommendation #1, jointly submitted by Jason Schaeffer, Jay Chapman, Michael Karanicolas, Mitch Stoltz, Nat Cohen, Rebecca Tushnet, and Zak Muscovitch.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">They are criticizing the second point of the agreed policy principles and point 3.2.2 of the implementation guide (both state basically the same thing, defining “word mark” as including "<i>service marks, collective marks, certification
marks, and word marks protected by statute or treaty</i>") [1].<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This apparently passed the vote without receiving any major attention, but the minority has a very strong argument when they say that this is a bad definition. It is circular[2] and much wider than the ones commonly used in other ICANN-related
rules and guides [3], including those marks that - in many jurisdictions - are only considered distinctive by virtue of their conjunction with a figurative/graphical element [4]. In other words, some of these "word marks" are deeply generic words that were
deemed distinct from the "commercial commons" because they were presented in a very unique or unusual graphic format.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I may be being overly concerned, but I truly concur with the Minority Statement when they warn us that such a broad definition can open a loophole even for IP rights abuse [5], such as reverse domain name hijacking.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Before developing this topic more on the public comments, since a few NCSG members were in favor of the definition as it was presented, I would just like to consult with the group to get more input about the issue.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">[1] "TMCH Recommendation #1 fails to satisfactorily define “Word Marks,”169thereby enabling the continued misapprehension of the scope and applicability of the TMCH by the TMCH Validation Provider. The absence
of a satisfactory definition of “Word Mark” will likely contribute to the continuation of the erroneous TMCH Validation Provider practices, which violate the fundamental promise that the TMCH would not expand rights but would rather only recognize existing
rights. The problem is compounded by the unwarranted lack of transparency of the TMCH database.", p. 131</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">[2] Footnote n. 169</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">[3] See p. 133</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">[4] See the potentially harmful examples that already exist in Deloitte's database, pointed out in pp. 135-137, such as "Parents", "Dealhunter", "Music", "Cars", "A" and "Own Your Power"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">[5] See p. 134</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif">Pedro de Perdigão Lana</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://cutt.ly/RfkTFrK" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:black">Lawyer, OAB/PR 90.600, Faria Santos Advocacia</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:black">LLM in Commercial Law at UCoimbra (PT), Researcher at
<a href="https://www.gedai.com.br/" target="_blank">GEDAI/UFPR</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#073763">Board member of
<a href="https://youthsig.org/" target="_blank">Youth SIG</a> (Internet Society) and
<a href="https://br.creativecommons.net/" target="_blank">Creative Commons Brazil</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif">The information available in this email is restricted to the sender and the intended recipient(s).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>