I'm not on audio only but I am 6759
Can someone post the link herE?
Chronological listing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jRYPkK-S3TKA9HQIhN-wsn9M8cVg3S5J/edit
STI report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_8000/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf
All the various AGB iterations were posted as links on the Working Group wiki in 2017.
I found the final report on the recommendations. Looking for final report that Board adoptd.
I know it's embedded in AGB but is there a separate posting for just the STI final recommendations
@Lori, here’s the link to the STI final report, including the minority statements that were filed: https://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf
well I think the Policy was the 2007 Policy. Then there was a lot of debate about what the subsequent work was including the IRT, STI and the AGB- policy or implementation
STI is not policy as it was not from a PDP. Both STI and sbsequent AGB are implementation details of a general policy to protect trademarks -- in my view
Wait, are you saying it's not binding policy if it's not applicable to all gTLDs?
@Phil, agree,and the STI recommendations from Dec 2009 are not the final word because staff were directed to put them out for public comment "prior to finalisation of the model"
@Rebecca - it is not becaues of their relation to all gTLDs as such, but because of the ICANN Registry Agreement definition of "Consensus Policy"
Right, but "binding" is not equivalent to "consensus" unless we are doing nothing here
*Something* is the official binding policy of ICANN w/r/t the TMCH etc. even though it is not Consensus Policy
@Rebecca, staff can provide information on that.
so it was a glorified response letter rather than consensus policy
It was not binding at any level?
00:54:41 Lori Schulman:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_8000/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf
Final recommenations of STI link attached. Not sure what wording was changed when incorporated into AGB. We would have to look.
That's a clear articulation of the view, but not of the reasons for the view--I did not think Staff got to decide policies, but perhaps I have misunderstood.
it’s definitely very interesting
@Rebecca, the final form of all the 2012 RPMs were decided with community consultation, including via the various iterations of the Applicant Guidebook.
@lori, I noticed they changed some wergild on design marks and like STI said “text” strings and Guide book said “word” strings. Something very revenant in trademark lexic
You are correct that ICANN staff does not decide on what is binding policy, or any provisions or processes that bind our Contracted Parties.
@Mary Wong - was there a "final" STI recommendation that exactly mirrors what ended up in the AGB or do we have to look to the AGB doc. Just trying to minimize the paper given the size of the AGB.
@Lori, staff will have to double check - given that following the Board’s direction to ICANN staff to develop a proposed final model based on the STI recs, there were a few iterations of the AGB.
Reminder to mute when not speaking
Link to STI report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_8000/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf
For me it is clear we cannot give protection to design marks, regardless if they have text or not, because the LAW does not protect the text string of a design mark unless it says so, so TMCH cannot “read” the design to interpretaste
You can't represent designs in the TMCH, colors or font or other limitations
Michael R. Graham
@Rebecca -- the STI statement is that the database should not be REQUIRED to include non "text mark" trademarks -- it does not PROHIBIT their inclusion.
They were under a mandate (as we are) not to expand TM rights
Michael R. Graham
@Rebecca -- But does not prohibiting registration of the TEXT portion of Design + Text or Stylized Text trademarks contract TM rights?
The text in a stylized mark is protected - rights are not being expanded here.
only if it says so
You can have text, text+desing or desing
the problem is when delimit “reads“ simple design and gives text protection
Remember that not all patent offices around the world use clear disclaimer notes
In any case, if the text as a separate entity of the design, is not protected, then the string should not be protected, because in that case, anyone in the country could use the same string but in a different desing
Agree w/ @MichaelGraham that design marks may be allowed, but not required. Depending on the TLD this could be a very important allowace. For example, a potential .VERIFIED registry, etc.
Martin, when would this be the case? In the US, this would not be the case, absent a disclaimer.
@Brian, correct - Deloitte currently offers a few Ancillary Services that have been approved by ICANN Org (in accordance with the contract and as permitted by the scope of the AGB).
Exactly, there are different mechanisms, in continental law we have separate categories, text, design and mix. But my point it, Delloite cannot create a protection the law doesn’t give.
or the TMCH, deleite or whoever handles it
@Martin, except it's not really a protection, it's an option to buy a name in a first wave, and an after the event notification of registration. The proposal for a Global Protected Marks List (ie a block) which would have been a protection, were binned by the STI
I don’t see any new protections being created when a stylized or composite mark is in the TMCH
@Mary So we create a definition?
Looking forward to the .fig TLD to solve this problem ;-)
@Cyntia, more in the way of a clear understanding of what we mean by the different types of “text marks".
@susan, we give that privilege because it has a legal comercial protection
@Mary I like it.
e.g. “text-only” (words, letters, numerals); “stylized text”; “text plus design/graphical/visual element”.
Any definition should be broad, basically to cover anything that could be represented technically in a domain name, because the test is confusing similarity/bad faith
For me the definition is, as long as the law is protecting the string of text in its use in commerce.
there are cases were a design with text does not protect the text string
@Martin, so perhaps for those “text plus visual/graphical/design element” marks, it should be matched with the extent to which the particular jurisdiction being relied on to show the TM registration protects the textual element of that composite mark.
Quick point that the purpose of the policy is to help users. It seems that more info is generally better than less info.
Exactly, and who ever operate the TMCH is there to do that compliance
Apologies, I have to leave for another call - but you are in excellent staff hands with Julie and Ariel anyway!
I thnk it'svery clear that the STI is not the status quo. When council accepted that report they directed a public comment before finalising the model
sorry, have to drop the call
and there was endlesspublic comment which shaped the SQ
Hi, I think that your presentation was excellent Brian. Thank you.
You definitely carried the laboring oar today.
Thanks Brian, appreciate all the background here; thanks all, until next time
Thnaks Brian & all!
Next call: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call scheduled for Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes