Who said what on DAG4
23 July 2010
Fionn O'Raghallaigh, London
The comment period for the latest draft applicant guidebook closed on July 21. Managing Internet IP rounds up some of the more interesting comments.
On rights protection measures
Paul McGrady writing on behalf of the IP Constituency said this about the rights protection measures:
We wish that we could support the RPMs in DAG4; however, we cannot. Unfortunately, DAG4 contains watered down RPMs which are insufficient.
Nick Wood of Com Laude had this to say about the Trademark Clearing House:
However, we are concerned that the absence of a definition of "Substantive Review" means that mark owners in some parts of the world, including the European Union, may be discriminated against. We think that any Trademark Clearinghouse must be non-discriminatory. Furthermore, the operators of the Trademark Clearinghouse must not be the arbiter of the validity of trade marks.
Reflecting a different view to that held widely from the IP community, Jeff Neuman speaking on behalf of the Registries Constituency had this to say about the post-delegation dispute resolution procedure:
Please do not be fooled...
Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP Magazine,
log in or
subscribe now.
Alternatively take a
free trial, giving you 48-hour access to Managing IP Magazine (some articles and surveys may be excluded).
Subscribe Now
This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.
Subscribe
Take a free trial
Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.
Take a free trial