[PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - Version 6

[Sam Lanfranco]

Kathy,

Could do the PDF but cannot since I don't know what the "appropriate 
signature section" is...within the PDF.

I cleaned up two things, removing the redundant (b & (c in the first 
paragraph, and deleting the remaining comments by Stephanie, since the 
text accepts the replacement of "light years" with "centuries".

As I understand it, Stephanie's comment with regard to the time period

(p.5) "Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow Trademark claims 
period to be extended beyond ninety days?"

is with regard to NCSG questioning the following language in the Staff 
Paper on Rights Protection Mechanisms in the New gTLD Program: Revised 
Report September 2015 
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en 
(5.3 Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, page 84). Or is it 
something more?

"The Trademark Clearinghouse also offers an Ongoing Notifications 
service at no additional cost that informs the trademark holder whenever 
someone has activated a domain name in a new gTLD that matches a term 
that is recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. When opting in to this 
service, the trademark holder will receive a notice informing them of 
the matching domain name, so the trademark holder can determine whether 
it wishes to take action. This is a non-mandatory service provided 
following the 90-day Claims Period for each new gTLD whereby trademark 
holders are notified of potential intellectual property infringement for 
an indefinite period of time beyond the required 90-day period. Deloitte 
provides this service to trademark holders and agents for the duration 
of their trademark record registration into the Trademark"

Sam L.


On 29/11/2015 1:41 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Hi Sam,
> Tx for your close review - much, much appreciated!!  I've incorporated
> your edits. Correcting the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> (good catch) and updating the Redskins trademark to take away "powerful
> and very," but keeping "valuable" to illustrate the idea that even the
> valuable trademarks can be lost.
>
> I've also incorporated Stephanie's edits (with thanks to Stephanie!).
> Version 5 attached.
>
> Whoever takes this to final, could you please: convert the final to PDF
> and add the appropriate signature section?
> Best and tx,
> Kathy
>