Re: lp:trademark_name field

On 4/14/11 10:58 AM, James Gould wrote:
> Gavin,
>
> I want to raise the question for the list whether there is any
> standard trademark authority interface / protocol

I don't think so, however there several candidates with less than 
universal (in theory) coverage that may be (in practice) nearly so, 
for some registries, so perhaps a (IANA ID, TBD, entry) key-value pair 
would, if non-empty, convey useful data, for a practical number of 
registrations for one or more registries.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, if a hack works for com, then 
it is likely to be adopted by some others, so that's a starting point 
to determine hack utility value for some future .foo's TM registration 
processing data stream.

> 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. I’m afraid without understanding the underlying interface
> requirements of the trademark authorities that we’ll 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.

Yup.

> --
>
> 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


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