Re: lp:trademark_name field

Gavin,

I want to raise the question for the list whether there is any standard
trademark authority interface / protocol since I believe that the EPP
extension would be highly dependent on the underlying interface requirements
with the trademark authorities?  It would be great if representatives of the
trademark authorities could participate and help collaborate on the EPP
extension as well as helping define a standard interface for the registrars
and registries to use.  I¹m afraid without understanding the underlying
interface requirements of the trademark authorities that we¹ll be guessing
on what is needed in the EPP extension that could result in additional
custom extensions having to be created or having to build additional
flexibility into the extension to mitigate the unknown.

-- 

JG



James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
[email protected]

703-948-3271
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166
VerisignInc.com



From: Gavin Brown <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:58:12 -0400
To: InterNetX - Volker Janzen <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [provreg] lp:trademark_name field

Hi Volker, thanks for your feedback.

> I had a look at the draft and thought about some experiences we had with
> launch phases. A question regarding the lp:trademark_name field appeared.

My understanding of this field is that it does not contain data that is
used to validate the applicant's eligibility.

When a trademark clearinghouse is validating an application (for
example.foo, say), they will take the trademark number (provided in the
<lp:trademark_number> element) and use this to obtain the full trademark
information from the trademark authority that has jurisdiction over the
locality specified in the <lp:trademark_locality> element. This
information will include the trademark name. The clearinghouse will then
apply whatever the TLD's policy is for confirming that the trademark
matches the domain name being applied for.

The <lp:trademark_name> field is therefore only a hint used to confirm
the mark to which the application refers, but doesn't uniquely and
solely identify it. It may not even be needed.

Does anyone agree/disagree?

G.

--
CentralNic Ltd
Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services
for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries
https://www.centralnic.com/

CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company
number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR.
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg