is this all about trademark words ? i dont understand the full list
The UDRP & URS are trademark dispute resolution mechanisms for domain names. They don't need to be
registered TMs, though --- a complainant can have "common law"
unregistered TMs. IGOs typically do not register TMs corresponding to their names and/or acronyms with national trademark offices, but might be considered to have unregistered TMs in those terms in many cases.
Many IGOs register their names/acronyms in the "Article 6ter" database, see:
https://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/
which is used by national trademark offices to
block other terms from becoming registered, if they would be confusing. It's not an automatic block, as an identical or similar mark can be registered if it's not confusing.
e.g. "PAM" is in the Article 6ter database, for the World Food Programme. It can be seen as an 8900-series listing in the USPTO database:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=89000806&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
(but it's not considered a registered TM -- it's just there to note the "blocking right")
But, there are numerous US registered TMs that were not blocked by that World Food Programme entry, see:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=72232915&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch [the cooking spray]
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85163866&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch [computer services for optometry]
etc.
The text of the Article 6ter treaty can be read at:
https://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/legal_texts/article_6ter.html
Note the portion in 1(c):
The countries of the Union shall not be required to apply the said provisions when the use or registration referred to in subparagraph (a), above, is not of such a nature as to suggest to the public that a connection exists between the organization concerned and the armorial bearings, flags, emblems, abbreviations, and names, or if such use or registration is probably not of such a nature as to mislead the public as to the existence of a connection between the user and the organization.
In the original working group that I was on (for 4 years!), we came to the recommendation that there be a "policy guidance" issued for UDRP/URS panelists to be aware of this (but not to modify the UDRP). This was recommendation #2 in the report (bottom of page 4):
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/defaul...ch/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-17jul18-en_0.pdf
Recommendation #2:
The Working Group notes that an IGO may seek to demonstrate that it has the
requisite standing to file a complaint under the UDRP or URS by showing that it has
complied with the requisite communication and notification procedure in accordance
with Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property1
. An IGO may consider this to be an option where it does not have a registered trademark
or service mark in its name and/or acronym but believes it has certain unregistered
trademark or service mark rights for which it must adduce factual evidence to show
that it nevertheless has substantive legal rights in the name and/or acronym in
question. In this regard, the Working Group recommends that specific Policy Guidance
on this topic be issued by ICANN to clarify the following points:
(a) this alternative mechanism for standing is not needed in a situation where
an IGO already holds trademark or service mark rights in its name and/or
acronym, as the IGO would in such a case proceed in the same way as a nonIGO trademark owner; (b) whether or not compliance with Article 6ter will be considered determinative of standing is a decision to be made by the UDRP or URS panelist(s) based on the facts of each case; and (c) the possibility that an IGO may seek to rely on its compliance with Article 6ter to demonstrate standing should not modify or affect any of the existing grounds which UDRP and/or URS panelists have previously found sufficient for IGO standing (e.g. based on statutes and treaties).
This was a reasonable way to balance things, that Article 6ter registration
did not automatically confer TM rights, but it is
fact-specific, and given the appropriate facts might (if an IGO has used the term widely, etc.) rise to give them standing.
As you can see, we thought about all these issues quite carefully and deeply. But, the ICANN insiders pretend that we didn't do our homework, that we were somehow "rogue elements", when in fact it is they that want to trample upon the legitimate fundamental rights of domain name owners through their unbalanced and one-sided recommendations.
They want to throw domain owners under the bus.