Re: lp:trademark_name field

Hi James,

I am actively trying to get input from various trademark experts and 
authorities - including the UK's IPO and WIPO - about whether any such 
standards exist. I completely agree that we need to get the trademark 
data model right or we're not going to get any adoption.

G.

On 14/04/2011 15:58, James Gould wrote:
> 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. 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.
>
> --
>
> 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
>

-- 
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