April 8, 2020
Online Platforms: Trademark Rights and Relevance

Online Platforms: Trademark Rights and Relevance


– We have one more panel to go. It’s gonna be on online platforms. And I’ll introduce the
moderator for this panel, and it is Mark Greenberg,
immediately to my left. Who is a professor of law
at Golden Gate University. In looking at his bio,
I’m gonna cherry-pick a particular line that I thought was the most interesting here, Professor Greenberg’s scholarship has focused on legal issues
pertaining to comic art, content on the internet,
obscenity law in online contexts, and copyright issues in both US and China. So he’s the perfect
moderator for this panel. And with that I’m gonna turn
it over, please take over. (audience applauds) – Thank you. Well good afternoon everyone
and welcome to the largest, and last, panel of the day.
(laughter) It’s my pleasure to introduce the members of this panel, we’ve got a tremendous group because we’re covering both national and international issues, regarding a very interesting
element of trademark law, and that is trademarks
in the online universe. And the sometimes uneasy relationship between trademark owners,
and the online platforms where trademarks play an important role. So we’ve brought together
a group of people representing all ends of that spectrum. And we have a great
opportunity has as our lead off a panelist Marc Cooperman,
who is a longtime partner with the Banner Witcoff firm. Who is gonna give us the state of the law, and he’s also gonna tell
us about the hypothetical that we have put together as a panel which will guide our discussion throughout the rest of the panel. We are followed by a colleague
who’s traveled a bit for us, Xinghao Wang from the Alibaba group, will provide some insight
into Alibaba as a platform and their relationship
with trademarks and brands. And then shifting to a
company that represents and deals with a great number
of brands, Live Nation. Which of course is near
and dear to my heart because they’re a successor
to the Bill Graham group in the entertainment arena which is a little bit
more in my wheelhouse. Eric Gelwicks is here to
represent Live Nation. A very active participant in
intellectual property law areas and I’m pleased to say an alumni of Golden Gate University School of Law. Following Eric is Dan Chen. Dan Chen is a partner at the
Unitalen Attorneys at Law firm in Beijing, in the
People’s Republic of China. And she will bring that unique
perspective to our panel. And then following Dan is Patchen Haggerty from Perkins Coie, and I gotta tell you if you’re looking at the
slides for this panel which I encourage you all to
do after the program as well, Patchen has put together one
of the best reference listings I’ve seen on trademark
and online platforms. So for those of you who are practitioners as well as students, this is gonna be a great resource for you
after this conference. Which you’ll continue to use I expect, for quite a long time. I can heartedly encourage you
to take a look at her slides. And then we’re going to hear from an American-based platform, one that we’re all familiar with because after the Christmas holidays we all did a lot of shopping on Amazon. And Michael Kelly from Amazon will give us that platform’s perspective on this very interesting question, the intersection of
trademarks and platforms. And then finally, and of
course it seems fittingly, to give us a role, playing
the role of discussant, and giving some feedback
on the overall panel as well as offering some commentary on the interesting
problems of what happens when you see things that are, let’s say, endorsements of a particular brand, that you think are coming from a consumer or a fan of the brand, and in fact it may have been a plant by the company. How do platforms and brand
owners deal with those issues? Our own David Franklyn
who will bring us home at the end of this panel. So, the best part for me
is the moderator’s job ’cause I’m done. (loud laughter) And it’s my pleasure now
to turn over the podium to Marc Cooperman. (audience clapping) – [Man In Audience] Hi,
good to see you again. – Good afternoon everyone. So what is going on in the
world of online platform law from a trademark perspective? Short answer, right upfront, it’s kind of still the Wild West. And that’s because there’s
not a lot of law out there, and when you manage to find that law, it’s pretty darn muddy, as we’ll see. Mark mentioned that we
created a hypothetical for our panel to kick around. So, like any good Western, our hypothetical has
several starring roles. Our good guy protagonist
is our brand owner, you can think of them
as a rancher out west. They sell authentic Pucci,
that’s with a P, handbags. Our are bad guy, our
antagonist, is our infringer. Our company that’s selling
counterfeit products or products that a lot like
the authentic Pucci products but maybe aren’t, counterfeit. You can think of them
as the cattle rustler. So that’s the setup. Now where is this all going on? It’s all on and we’ve been
talking about online platforms, we mean like a marketplace,
like Alibaba, or Amazon, and there’s sales of authentic products and counterfeit products, and
infringing products on there. What role does the online platform play? And how are they potentially liable? Are they a supporting role,
or are they a starring role? Well, under the law sometimes they’re looked at as
an innocent bystander. Sometimes they’re looked
at as a business owner who’s trying to expand in the marketplace, maybe at the expense of the brand owner. Sometimes they’re expected to
be part of law enforcement, as we’ll see. So the good news is way out west still first principles
of trademark law apply. We have essentially two types of buckets of potential liability for our owners. We have direct liability, which basically bases on
any actions that you take regardless of your state of mind. And then we have potential
indirect infringement that requires some
knowledge, some forethought. And that’s pretty standard
in normal trademark analysis. So the case to know in this area is the Tiffany versus eBay case. If you’re gonna read one case
you should read that one. Now it’s already almost nine years old, but this is a case to read. And in Tiffany, there were sales of both authentic Tiffany products and counterfeit Tiffany products on eBay. eBay had a big problem
with counterfeiting, there was a ton of it going on. Not only for Tiffany products, but for other products as well. And eBay knew that they had a problem. The Second Circuit concluded that there was lots of knowledge, lots of evidence that eBay
knew what was going on. And eBay didn’t ignore this, eBay took precautions to
try and solve the problem. They created a Trust and
Safety Team, they called it. This is a group of hundreds of folks who processed brand owner complaints that were sent to eBay
about infringing products being sold on eBay. They had a notice and take
down provision set up. Remember we’re not in copyright land, we don’t have a statutory safe-harbor for notice and take down
like we do under the DMCA. We’re in trademark land, and in trademark land, right now at least, each independent online marketplace needs to kind of figure out their own way. And I’m sure we’ll hear
from Xinghao and Michael about how they handle these
notice and take down procedures. Despite all this effort by
eBay, Tiffany still sued them. Alleging direct infringement,
indirect infringement, dilution, et cetera, et cetera. Conclusion at the end of the day, no culpability Second Circuit says. So let’s dig a little bit more into the direct infringement bucket. Typically in this situation
we’re focusing on sales of trademark products. Now if was the sales are by the platform like Amazon for example,
sells products directly, they’re the actual party that are selling, then the traditional trademark analysis, looking at likelihood of confusion as the source would apply. It gets more complicated though in the Amazon and Alibaba world where we’re dealing
with an online platform where there’s third-party sales
of the trademarked products. And that was the case in Tiffany. These were almost all
sales of actually used, or resold Tiffany products, on eBay by third-party sellers. Nothing sold directly by eBay. So, at the end of the
day the court in Tiffany concluded that there was no liability for direct infringement, basically on the fair
use type of analysis. But there’s an interesting question, and this is some of the
mud I was talking about. Did the Second Circuit suggest
that the platform’s knowledge and response to all of these complaints mattered in the direct
infringement analysis. So this is the Second Circuit, “eBay’s knowledge is relevant,” and I’m reading the bolded portion, “eBay’s knowledge is relevant to the issue “of whether eBay contributed
to the direct infringement.” So that’s talking about
indirect infringement, right? But I want to focus on
direct infringement. “But it is not a basis for a claim “of direct trademark
infringement against eBay, “because eBay promptly
removed all these listings.” I missed the most important part, “Especially in as much as eBay promptly “removed all the listings.” So that language,
especially in as much as, was the Second Circuit suggesting that if eBay hadn’t
promptly been a good guy and removed all these listings, that they might have been able to be found liable for direct infringement? That’s one potential take
away in some of the mud that we all can be
arguing at down the road. So in addition to sales of products leading to potential
trademark infringement, There is potential liability
for false advertising. And that was one of the
claims in Tiffany as well. If the ads use the trademark at issue, and cause deception or confusion. The Second Circuit actually gave Tiffany some traction on that, and sent the case back on remand. At the end of the day the District Court found again against Tiffany. But that is another
avenue, or another path, for all of us to keep in mind when and if we are
dealing with our friends at the online marketplaces. And as a reminder, another path for potential direct infringement
online are meta-tags, if you’re using the trademark
embedded in meta-tags, or search algorithms, that
could be another source for direct trademark infringement
liability for brand owners against potential infringers
online, or marketplaces. Let’s turn to indirect infringement. And here the focus is
really on the knowledge of the marketplace and
what actions they took, or inactions they didn’t
take, in response to that. The leading case here to keep in mind is the Inwood Labs case. Now this is a Supreme Court
case from over 30 years ago. Not surprisingly, it didn’t
deal with online marketplaces but it did deal with the standards for indirect infringement. And the state of mind that’s required in order to prove indirect infringement. And post Inwood Labs, the cases that have applied
it in the marketplace context, have focused on this
second prong down there that I have bolded. And generally what the courts look for is, did the marketplace continue
to supply a product or service, and the service here would be providing a marketplace online for sales, so did the marketplace continue
to supply their services to one it knows, or has reason to know, is engaging in infringement. That’s the standard, requiring
some level of knowledge. Inwood Labs. Back to the eBay case, they
took the Inwood Labs case, applied it and concluded, there’s no indirect infringement, ’cause that’s what
we’re talking about now. Because though there was lots of evidence of general knowledge of
counterfeiting going on, it wasn’t product specific. The language that the
Second Circuit talked about was knowledge of which particular listings is what you need to have, as opposed to general
knowledge, general takeaway. I’ll ask you, what does that mean? Which particular listings, knowledge of which particular listings? That can mean a lot of things
depending on what details you pass on to the marketplace. Or what details you know. Another way to fulfill the Inwood Labs standard for knowledge, some ports, is if the marketplace, if you can show, has direct control and monitoring of what’s going on on the marketplace. That’s a substitute for
that specific knowledge. And then finally, willful blindness. This has been excepted by
a number of courts, again, even the eBay court commented on this. And this could be another substitute for the Inwood standard of knowledge, in order to prove indirect infringement. We’ve got a couple of cases
up here that talk about that. The Louis Vuitton case,
intent may be imputed as a result of service providers knowing failure to prevent
infringing actions. So what this seems to be saying is if you know that there’s some infringement going on in your marketplace,
some counterfeiting, you have a obligation to act. At least that’s the potential implication. Not clear, it’s kind of muddy,
but that’s the implication from the willful blindness language. And pretty much that’s all I’ve got. – [Mark] Great, perfect. – Thank you.
– [Mark] Thank you Marc. (audience applauds) – [Mark] Now we’ll hear from Xinghao. Watch your step. – [Xinghao] Just hold this right? – So right slide to advance. Okay, should be coming up, yep. – Here we go, oh perfect.
– [Mark] Very good. – Okay, so before I start, I just want to make two clarification. First of all I didn’t travel
a long distance at all. (laughs) I traveled from Queens. – [Mark] That’s a long distance. (audience laughs)
– It’s not very pleasant to travel in New York
traffic, that’s for sure. Second, I would not
describe our relationship with the Rights Order as uneasy. In fact, I think
collaboration is the best tool I think to fight against
online infringement. And my role actually, is
that I station in New York, and my role as well as, we
have a team of six people, is to collaborate with stakeholders, including rights holder,
associations, government, and try to address the
infringement issues. And we also have a similar
team, actually a larger team, based in China that work with Rights Order in China as well. And most of our International Rights Order have their branch in China. So they work with them directly. So but anyway, so what
I’m going to do today is basically to just
only have a few minutes to talk about our framework
of our IP infringement. And then we’ll mainly just focus on the notice take down part, because that seems to
be the focus of today. But before I start that,
I just want to give you a little bit of flavor of what Alibaba is. So Alibaba is not really, we don’t consider ourselves
as an ecommerce, per se. So what we are trying to
do is build an ecosystem of technology to enable anyone to do ecommerce with
anybody around the world. So that’s actually is our vision. And as you can see, we already build a very complicated ecosystem. Which include retail commerce. We have various different platforms for different business models. And we have an entertainment platforms including like Youku,
and a few other platforms that provide contents. We have a local service
which basically connect your local vendors, including restaurants, coffee shops to you so that
they can deliver service to you. And to enable all those
ecommerce activities we also build a logistics platform which basically connect
logistics service provider with the person who
needs logistics services. And we also have a payment
service called Ant Financial which not only facilitate transactions but also facilitate a micro
type of financial products. And beyond all those of course, is build on our Aliyun cloud platform. Which is a separate service for clients. So as you can see, what we’re
trying to do is basically to build an ecosystem
for your digital life. Every aspect of your digital life. And so what we’re trying
to do is want you to spend more time on our platforms. So to do IP enforcement on
this complicated ecosystem basically we have a three pillar approach. When is a notice take down. Where as what we just talked about, is reactive to the notice
submitted by Rights Order. Second, we do have a very
robust, proactive monitoring, where we use technologies and algorithms to try to identify problematic listings. Those algorithms not
neccessarily just rely on the product knowledge itself, but also rely on seller
behavior, user comments. Not a single criteria, but a
combination of those criterias to decide which seller or
which listing is problematic. And then we remove that. The third pillar actually,
is offline investigation. Off-line enforcement I would say. Because it include, basically, offline criminal investigation and offline civil investigation. In the criminal investigation we basically collaborate Chinese police on their investigation
against counterfeit products. And we also work with the Rights Order to facilitate their
investigation of offline targets. But we also initiated
our own civil litigations against a seller on our platforms for their breach of a contract, because they sell counterfeit. So it’s a breach of our
contract with the seller that we use that as basis to file civil litigations against them. And all those pillars,
essentially the idea of those pillars is to increase the cost of infringement on our platform. So that is deter infringement. But today I’m only gonna focus on the notice take down
part the first pillar. And as you can see, as a platform operator our notice take down process
is also platform based. So we have this win-stop platform for Rights Order to
register their account, to submit their IP certificates, and then to submit their
take down requests. So they can track the
process of notice take down, then that’s how we do it. It’s a specialized
platform for Rights Order. And we essentially have six
main ecommerce platforms, and you can submit take down requests against any of those
platforms, in this platform. But there’s something that I want to actually pointed out here, now. We have six different platforms. Some platforms like Taobao,
Tmall, Tmall Global, and 1688 actually, are
Chinese based platforms. And two of those
Alibaba.com and AliExpress are basically international platforms. So we do have different rules. For Chinese based
platforms we do require you to have a valid IP in China. You need to have a trademark
registered in China, A Pad of Rights registered in China and copywriting you don’t
have to register in China, but we do require a statement
saying you own a copyright. But a copyright apply to
any of those platforms. But for international platforms, there you can actually
enforce your IP rights for example, valid in the US. So we do have different rules. And our approach essentially is if you submit a take down request, and when we remove a listing, when I say while we remove listing, so the process looks like this. When you submit a notice take
down there is a review process to see whether this is a
valid take down request. If it is, the listing is removed. And the seller gets a chance
to respond to that notice and they can submit evidence saying Rights Order made a mistake. So if the counter notice is accepted then this thing will be reinstated, but the counter notice is rejected then this thing will
be permanently removed. And at that point the seller
will actually get a penalty. The penalty is not fine,
not a money penalty, but it’s associated with
your online activities. Maybe your search linking will be reduced. You’ll be prohibited to do advertisement. You’ll be prohibited to use
social tools on our platform. And all your listings
maybe temporarily removed, your stores, until the shop
will be permanently closed. So there’s escalating penalties against different IP infringements. That’s how we deter the IP infringement. It’s not just the removal,
but at the same time we also impose some of that limitations
on their online activity. And those limitations are
actually pretty severe because the online traffic is the lifeline of any ecommerce shop, as you know. And any of this limitation will substantially reduce their traffic. So, as an online platform
obvious advantage is that we can put a lot of data
into your fingertip. So we have a dashboard
to show your statistics, and your status of take down
requests, things like that. And we do publish, we’re very transparent
about our IP effort. So we do annually we publish
our IP annual report. And at the same time
we also have a handbook so to help Rights Order, to
help their online activities. And in fact, just a month ago, we just published a Chinese
version for the 2018. But we have not translated
that into English. So we will see the updates very soon. But the one thing I
actually, I have one minute. So after, as I said we have three pillars, notice take down, practice monitoring, and offline action. So people may ask, what’s the result? So for a long time we’re not so sure whether our system actually works. But this time we’re very sure. The reason is that first of all, we see substantial reduction
of notice take down, number of notice take downs
submitted by Rights Order. Second, we actually see
substantial reduction of the listings we proactively removed. The third that we have
a channel for consumer to report suspicious listings, and that is also substantially reduced. And the fourth is consumer refund request based on counterfeit is
substantially reduced. And also, we help authority
on their investigation, and the total number of
investigation request coming from authority also
substantially reduced. So all those parameters basically indicate that after so many years of
doing this three pillar approach it’s actually really start to work. And we feel confident about that. And as I said, collaboration is the key. So I guess my suggestion
is that work with us, use all those tools available to you. And I think I stop here. – [Mark] Great. – Thank you.
(audience applauds) – [Mark] (whispering) Watch your step. Right there, be careful. – Alright so, you heard it from one side, you’ve heard the foundational law, and now you’re gonna hear it
from the brand owner side. But I don’t think it’s
gonna be that controversial. So on that note, quick disclaimer, I’m speaking on behalf of myself and not the comments,
opinions of Live Nation, or the artists that we represent. So I work in the merchandise division which supports tour, retail, ecommerce, licensing for all the
artists that we work with and their marks. So, we’ve thrown out the
general word platforms, and I just wanted to clarify
the type of platforms that I specifically work with
on pretty much a daily basis to sort of fight the counterfeiting issue. To the marketplaces we’ve heard from Amazon, Alibaba, et cetera. There’s what I call ecommerce solutions and these are either website builders, or ecommerce toolkit
that somebody can build a standalone website and sell products. So they have their own unique URL. They have their own owner that
can be anywhere in the world. And as a representative
from Facebook talked about, sometimes it’s really difficult
to track those people down, especially now that the who is information is hidden from public eye. We deal a lot with print
on demand platforms. So it’s sort of like a marketplace but the products don’t exist
until someone orders them. This allow somebody to essentially to download content
anywhere on the internet, including pre-vectorized images, throw it up on a template T-shirt and all of a sudden
they’re selling a product. There’s no cost to entry. And really if something gets taken down there’s no ramifications ’cause they haven’t had to
invest in any inventory. And then the social networks. I think there’s almost always
a marketing campaign goes with sort of sophisticated
counterfeiting operations, so if you’re not taking it
down on those platforms as well you’re usually gonna get caught with, you take something down
and then it immediately pops back up through the
same social media channels just with a new link. So that’s sort of the so-called
battleground we work on. As Mr. Cooperman highlighted, the law kind of favors
a whack ’em all game. And I actually described
it earlier to somebody as sort of whack ’em
all combined with Risk, if you’re familiar with that game. Except the other players
in the game are invisible and they just get to
pop-up wherever they want. And then you can get rid of
them, you can win that battle, but then you have to move
on to somewhere else. So you’re really just
reacting in many cases. And that’s where I think platform and brand owner partnership
is really important to sort of preempt the bad actors. Try to get the screening program up, which we’ll talk a little
bit more about that later. And I think it’s important, as I said, some platforms, especially
for ecommerce tools, make it extremely easy
for a bad actor to create, and then mirror websites, and have the exact identical
stores under multiple URLs. Doing the investigation, create a link between those is very important. Some of the tools because of GDPR have been pulled back on. And the last point I would emphasize is that some platforms
make it very difficult to take stuff down, but
they make it very easy for a seller to sell something. So for instance we
represents a lot of artists, and they’re celebrities, and we have to upfront submit information saying that we’re authorized to use it. Get a signed statement with personally, an address, a phone number for a celebrity that might be on the trademark listing, which we’re just not gonna do. So those are hurtles
that end up in our way that we have to overcome, work with either their management
team, or outside council, to figure out. And then go after the various bad actors. So as I mentioned, I think
the partnership is component, and as Alibaba mentioned, and
talked with Amazon before, is the way to streamline the process, and the best way to do that
is to find somebody internally that you can work with, that
you can discuss the issues that you’re seeing. And set up a system whether
that’s technological, or it’s actually eyeballs on products. Obviously the scale is
sometimes difficult to do that, but we do have that in some circumstances. But really just have a two way street of here are the issues
that were confronting, here are the issues from my end that we would like you to address. We’re able to identify often, with some really high level of certainty, what products are
legitimate and what products are suspected as being counterfeit. So educating the platform
on what to look for. If there’s no legitimate resellers
in certain jurisdictions, then maybe those products get flagged for certain reasons early on
and warrant additional review. So as I emphasize, you
can talk about technology, you can talk about blocking systems, and really that’s gonna help you out in the notice take down context as well. Because you’re gonna have
a lot less products review. And once you take something
down it hopefully, ideally, wouldn’t show back up but we all know that’s
probably not the case, it’ll show up somewhere else. So, you know just having the
ongoing two way partnership and collect information that you can share from your end, and the platforms end, to really improve whatever
technology they’re using. Or to build on what they’re doing. So image recognition is
one way you can do that, or looking for keywords
using OCR, or something. So we heard a lot about
different types of IP, European design registrations,
and things like that. And for different IP owners the strongest IP is gonna differ. So in some cases it
might be the trademark, that might be the broadest IP that you can apply internationally. As we heard from Alibaba sometimes, in some circumstances you’ll
need filings in China. Or in other circumstances
we deal in platforms where you’ll need specific filings in Indonesia, or India. You might be dealing with a client, like we do, that filed one
application in class nine and forgot about their trademark
portfolio for many years. And for us going back and
trying to plug the holes in classes 25, for clothing, 16 for paper products, 18
for bags, things like that, can be very important
if we’re really trying to enforce on a global scale. We also deal with publicity rights and you can learn more about
patent in another conference. (chuckling) I’m gonna sort of gloss over this, because I think a lot of people are familiar with the notice take down. Other people were talking about it. But having a sort of toolkit of language, keywords you can send
to certain platforms. And just templatized emails, or letters that you can move quickly on stuff. Depending on if you’re in
house or working with clients, some clients just care about
getting the products down, others really want there to
be an aggressive approach. You might way whether
or not it’s just worth doing take downs, taking some screenshots, coming back to it later,
and how to build your case. And my time is just about up, so the last point I’ll just emphasize is having a holistic approach to your brand owner and enforcement. So whether you’re outside or inside, focusing on internal education. So you have various teams, we talked about working
with marketing teams but that can also be retail teams, they can be your eyes
and ears on the ground. And then external, and
may be creating products, or not products but educational materials that you can provide the platforms or third parties that show what is legit, what is counterfeit, and how
to identify certain things. So that’s it for me, but more to hear. Thank you. (audience applauds) – Thank you for staying with us. (laughs) Well I know everybody
wants to hear something new that they haven’t heard
before in other seminars, so I’m going to start with something new. We have an ecommerce law in
China from January first. And it doesn’t mean that we don’t have online platform system in the past, it’s just that this is a reinforcement of all the previous efforts. And also is no longer just
a big giants like Alibaba who will provide such a obligation, to implement such obligation. It will be all the ecommerce
business platform runners who shall have this obligation to protect, to enforce your IP rights in China. And something else also related online is that from this year
you will see more and more progress made by the trademark office and other administrative
authorities online, by giving more access to informations like certifications, like even
changes of ownership, and even decisions made by the trap which was not available online. But now the online platform is
definitely helping you a lot. But what I’m going to talk about is something not new,
which is the key part, the reason why I keep talking
about something not new is because it’s frequently forgotten. So when we’re talking about
online platform enforcement, are you really ready for that? I mean there is platform,
and there is a system, I would say a really great system in China to enforce your rights, but are you sure you’re ready? Let’s take a brief look of what I think you might want
to do a first check, before you take the actions. So do you really have the
enforceful rights in China? Well someone may say yeah, I
have a international trademark which was filed yesterday, I
already got the certificate, (audience chuckles)
and I can enforce that. That’s not the in situation China. You have to wait for 18 months after the statutory
examination period expires, so that you can have a certainty that you have the rights
to enforce in China. And do you have a valid proof of rights? Again the international
trademark owner says hi yes, I have this
registration certificate, or even grant of the protection issued by the trademark office. That’s not enough. You will need to do something more. You have to file an application for certification of
registration in order to enforce, not only to file online complaint, but also to pursue at the court, or report that at the custom. And is your right broad enough? This is a particular question
for US trademark owners because so far as I know that your description of those
tend to be very specific. Well that specific protection, will that be broad enough
to protect, to back up all your enforcement actions in China? And what if the target, they
have their own rights in China? What are the ways to deal with them? So we’re getting back to the Pucci case. There is a scenario, like this guy he doesn’t really sells in China but he contracts a Chinese
company to manufacturing for exportation to US, back to US. But several months later, well of course he didn’t do
the registration in China because he thought I’m
not selling in China, so why should I register? I’m not using my mark. Well actually, manufacturing in China is a kind of use of your trademark. So some months later he
find this identical goods, actually manufactured
by the same manufacturer but sold online, on
the ecommerce platform. So, you’re thinking Pucci is
thinking about taking actions. But, as I said, Pucci still does not have his registered trademark in China. How could he take the action? So here are the options, go quickly get your registration in China, and you might say, oh, that’s too long. Actually it’s not. The recent publication I have seen is a application filed in last August, and it’s already published in January. So Chinese trademark office taking steps to speed up the examination. So if you want to quick
action, a quick rights, skip the international registration and go directly to Chinese filing. But he might turn out finding
oh, my application is rejected because the Pucci mark has been registered by my manufacturer. What shall I do? I won’t be able to enforce. Well not exactly. Maybe we can take a look at whether we might be able to enforce copyright, even against a registered
trademark in China. Because we already have a
successful court case about that. And, as I mentioned, I won’t
repeat because of our time, when you do the
registration through Madrid, making sure you waited for 18 months. And you make sure the first
thing after the 18 months to do is to get a certification of registration from the
Chinese trademark office. And when you’re trying to check, see, what are the actual
goods that a manufacturer was sold by this manufacturer online. You may happen to find that the goods he sell is hosiery, or socks, while your own registration
covers only footwear. So this will actually be
the very typical problems encountered by US applicants. Making sure that you are
not really mentally bound by the scope of skills your
are kindly using in US. When you are thinking about protecting your trademark in China,
think more wider, think ahead. What are the things you might
potentially want to protect? What are the things that
you won’t feel comfortable if someone else register
or use the same mark on it. So these are all the
things that you really have to do a kind of self check
before you take the action. We see complaints about China
is not protecting my IP, well sometimes you don’t
not really get yourself equipped enough to get this protection. So do this check, and then go ahead you will be enforced in China. That’s my conclusion, thank you. (audience applauds) – [Mark] Patchen. – Alright, so so far we’ve heard a lot about marketplace take downs, and some platform take downs. I’m gonna talk a bit about
the rest of the universe. What happens when you have
scammers and fraudsters who don’t have any
actual physical product. They’re not counterfeiting anything. They’re really just out to get your users, and steal their money
or their information. How do we go after those people? So the internet’s continued to grow, and the most recent estimate is there about six billion
indexed webpages on the internet. Which doesn’t include social media. Active users of Facebook
are in the billions. And active users of
Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and other social media are
in the hundreds of millions. So this creates obviously,
a brand opportunity, an opportunity for brands to market and promote their brands. But it also creates a
mecca for trademark abuse. So what types of online brand
misuse do we commonly see? We see sale of counterfeit
goods, has been discussed, but we also see a lot of
impersonation and phishing scams, spoof sites, 800 customer service scams. And for those of you who aren’t familiar with impersonation and
phishing scams and spoof sites, these are scammers that
register domain names that are close to identical
to the brand name. Often times they use
internationalized domain names, so they look almost identical
to the primary brand except maybe there’s a little tilde, or an accent or something
over one of the letters that’s almost imperceptible in the URL. And then they will tweet
out a link to a promotion from a Twitter handle that’s close to identical to the primary brand. Users click on the link, they’re taken to a login
site that looks identical to what they’re used to
seeing from the brand. They enter in their user ID and password, and immediately the scammer
has access to their account. If it’s a financial account often times the money is drained, transferred away and its untraceable. If it’s other types of accounts the users can get access to
your personal information, your name, your address,
your credit card information, so this is the type of
scam that we are seeing and we’re doing a lot of
enforcement programs against stopping these types of scams. In the 1-800 customer service
scam it’s very similar. The scammers will post fake
800 customer service numbers. They’ll either Tweet them out, or they will post fake support sites on social media sites like Facebook, or message boards where people are like how do I actually get
a person on the phone for such and such a company? Someone will respond with oh, here’s the 800 customer service number. You call it and somebody
answers who sounds legitimately like you’re calling into a call center, you give them your account information and the same thing happens that happens with the phishing sites. Promotion of cheats and hacks for games. This is something that
we do a lot of work with for our gaming clients. Hackers get a hold of
the games, game code, they hack the code, and they figure out how to generate in game currency, or other virtual goods in the games. Or other things like accelerated strength, or the best player in the game, and then they sell the cheats and hacks through various means. And players buy these
so that they can cheat and be the best at the game. This is a huge market that we’re seeing a lot of activity in and doing a lot of
enforcement in this space. Fake product or gift card giveaways kind of goes along, these are part of the promotions that we see that lure people in to click on these links. And then cyber-spotting’s
been discussed a lot today. That’s essentially just
setting up a website that looks similar, or
is redirecting traffic, to another site, either
competitive or otherwise, online. So strategies for
protections of brands online. We’ve talked a lot about
securing protection for your key brands. Secure your relevant domain names and social media handles. This is tough now that
there are so many gTLDs. So I usually just encourage
brand owners to secure those that are most
relevant to your space, and some iterations of that. But you just can’t get ’em all. And then maintaining that large portfolio of domain names can
become quite expensive. And then engage in active monitoring for infringement activity. So in many rights, including the US, trademarks are use it or lose it rights. So if you’re not out there monitoring and actively enforcing, if you’re allowing customers to be duped or counterfeit products to be sold, it weakens your trademark rights Such that eventually you will lose them. So active monitoring for infringing is essential to retraining
your strong rights, and for protecting your consumers. So types of third-party
trademark monitoring that we use on a regular basis are third-party trademark
application watching services, domain name registration
watching services, website content monitoring. This is really helpful, particularly if you have a larger brand, because it really helps
narrow the universe of what you’re being shown as use of your third-party trademarks online. Social media watching
services, these are key. We have some watching services that will monitor social
media four times a day and send out a report. And it’s amazing. Each of the four reports has something that we need to take down. And then app monitoring
services, also essential. So many apps out there that
are using third-party brands. Self monitoring, this is an overview, this really just depends
on what your brand is, how big it is, how famous it is. But you of course can do Google or other search engine searches coupled with industry relevant words like cheap, hack, free
giveaway, et cetera. You’ll be amazed at what you’ll find. And then set up Google
alerts for brand mentions. Of course this is at scale, depending on how large your brand is, you don’t wanna get inundated. And then set up alerts for refusals for third-party trademark applications through the USPTO. Search the test database and
then register with the TMCH for alerts of newly
registered domain names. So enforcement strategies,
talked a lot about filing take down requests
with platform providers. Website hosting services for illegal and fraudulent activity. This is where we focus a
lot of our take down efforts for the scammers and the fraudsters. The website hosts and sometimes
the domain name registrars are particularly helpful in getting illegal and fraudulent
activity taken down. They don’t want their services
used for illegal and fraud, so they’re really helpful. And then sending cease and desist letters. And then UDRP complaints
are effective tools for obtaining control of domain names that have been used with scams. We’ve found that if we don’t file UDRPs, we just get the content
removed and taken down we see it come up again six months later. So it’s essential to get
control of the domain. And then as it has been discussed, working with the trademark
enforcement specialist to develop an ongoing monitoring of enforcement program is key. It helps cut down on the whack ’em all. It helps you be very strategic about what you’re going after, where to invest your funds wisely. So, getting to know take down procedures. Most platforms have them, and will remove infringing
content if it’s blatant. Many require evidence of trademark rights as we’ve discussed. Some platforms will
investigate the claims, others will put you in
contact with the other party for direct negotiation. And before I show you
the list I put together I just wanted to give a quick example, that just came up recently of this type of scan that was directed at the Deputy General Council for a client that we do a lot of online
enforcement take down work. He got a call from an
elderly woman who said “Hey, somebody just stole your identity “and is using it in
connection with this scam.” And so he asked her to
forward the emails and such. And it turns out, I’ll call him John Doe to protect his identity, they had whole scam put together. and they had these letters that were the law offices
of John Doe, Esquire, that had his California bar number on ’em, and the address for his former law firm. And it was an engagement
letter for this woman to represent her in connection with going after a fraud, oddly. But there were numerous letters of these. There was an invoice. She had actually paid them
$5000 to engage them for this. And the email was sent out from
a company called Claim Fed. If you go to their website
they claim to be experts in going after all types of claims. Personal injury, for
timeshares, all kinds of things. So we took all of that,
we investigated it, we investigated all of the sites. We were able to report
it to the site host, get all of the associated websites, we actually found four,
down within 48 hours. Sent out cease and desist letters to the several addresses we
found associated with the scam including what we think
to be a real cell number. Reporting it to the FBI,
the FTC, and the FCC. And we also got a hold of the bank to which the funds were transferred and had them freeze the account so that we can work with law-enforcement to try to get this woman her money back, and others that were scammed. So this is the kind of brazen
thing we’re seeing out there. Personal names are trademarks and we can enforce them
in just the same way. So I just wanted to share that example since it’s something just came up. And here are my resources. I’ve gone through all of the app and marketplace take down policies. Social media networking,
concept provider platforms, and then the app stores,
whoops, they’re mixed in there. So these will be in my materials. Each platform has a very
different take down policy, so I encourage you to read it in addition to filling out the form, to cut down on the back-and-forth. And that will help with
future enforcement campaigns. Thank you. (audience applauds) – Hello, I’m Mike Kelly from Amazon. Let me quickly, there, there we go. I’m gonna talk a little bit about Amazon. Introduced brand registry
and then talk about how I use brand registry, and we’ll cover a couple
topics in the meantime. I will be sensitive to the fact that I think the bar
opened 30 seconds ago. (laughter) So let’s dive right into it. Amazon’s mission is to be the earth’s most customer centric company. You might have heard that already. We talk about broad selection,
low prices, convenience but that’s also about trust. So we have, and addition
to Jeff’s quote here, “Customer trust is key
to Amazon’s business.” We’re constantly working
to earn and keep trust. If you think about Amazon
when it first started shopping on the internet, giving your credit card out
over the internet was very new. So we have another saying at Amazon that customer trust is hard
to win, but easy to loose. So anything that undermines customer trust is something that we take very seriously and those things have no place on Amazon. And that includes counterfeit products. So, we talked about
third-party marketplaces so I wanna talk a little about Amazon’s frequently called Fulfillment
By Amazon, or FBA. The way it works is that
sellers ship their products to Amazon fulfillment centers, we store the products for them even though the sellers
continue to own the products. And then when a customer orders them we do all the logistics for them, we pack and then ship those
products to the end customer. We do that obviously for a
fee, it’s a logistical service. This arrangement enables
third-party offers to become prime eligible,
which does usually increases customer interest in products that are for sale on Amazon. And we also provide
customer service support for the products that are
being sold through FBA as well. So this is a really big
kind of field leveler for small and medium enterprises, who can go from product
development to selling on Amazon in a much shorter time than
if they had have developed these capabilities themselves. So this third-party marketplace
has been very successful. So some statistics, we have
over one million US based small and medium enterprises
selling on Amazon. Over half the items sold on Amazon are actually coming from the marketplace, so from small and medium enterprises. Those taking advantage of
our logistical networks can avail themselves of customers in over 180 different countries, through 13 different marketplaces. So that’s a huge footprint. The vast majority of these
people are honest entrepreneurs. However, we do understand
that there are bad people who wanna do bad things on the internet. I think we all know that. So you know, this isn’t
just counterfeits for us, we’re constantly trying to evolve to deal with other types of fraud and attacks and things
that we might see online. And in fact a lot of the the times the people who were
actually doing counterfeits are actually doing other
bad things as well. So the main goal, and we’ll
talk about partnership and that was brought up a
couple of times on the panel, and that is key. But one of the things we
really focus on is preventing these bad actors from ever
even reaching the customer. So we work hard and invest heavily on proactive prevention efforts. So as you can see it’s
kind of a little bit of what are kind of the scale and
scope that we’re working in. So the proactive detection requires us to scan a wide variety of inputs, why the seller might be bad, or why the products
might not be legitimate. It’s a huge challenge to do,
we have millions of sellers. We process billions of
transactions a year, we make about five billion changes to our website on a daily basis. But that doesn’t mean
we’re not focusing on this. We collect a lot of data, that data gets run through our algorithms. And we are investing heavily in proactive prevention technology, that can be machine
learning, data science. So we have software engineers and investigators around the globe who are working on this
problem 24 hours a day and seven days a week. We like to look for risk
signals throughout the seller and product experience. So that could be the IP address
someone’s signing up with, that might help us detect someone who’s registering multiple
accounts do something wrong. Or it could even be
customer service contacts. Or customer reviews. All of these things can
feed into, as risk signals, into our algorithms for us to proactively detect
counterfeits and other problems. So our ultimate goal is to do
this so that the brand owners don’t have to file notice and take downs. Unfortunately that isn’t always perfect, and we’ll touch on that, but we continue to invest in protection. I have a mix of 2017, and 2018 data here, so don’t think that we
just stopped in 2017. But we did invest $200 million in 2017. We have 3000 people
worldwide working on this. Our ratio of proactive
efforts to reactive efforts is about a hundred to one. 99.9% of the products listed on Amazon never receive a notice of infringement. We’ve stopped almost 900 million bad and suspect listings
from ever going live on any of the Amazon sites. Notices of infringement are down 45% year-over-year, as of, whoop, July 2018. And customer complaints are down 30% year-over-year for counterfeits. So while we’re very proud of that, we still see that one 10th of a percent that is still a problem
and we’re continuing to double down and
increase our investments so that we can stop that, too. As sophisticated as our tech tools are and we continue to invest in them, they’re unfortunately not perfect. So another way the partnership helps, is it helps us tweak these tools and make them more
effective for brand owners. Here’s kind of a funny thing that happened when we first started
using customer reviews as part of the algorithm
to detect counterfeits. All of the artificial Christmas trees started disappearing from Amazon sites. (laughter) There’s nothing wrong with these products, they were a real fake Christmas trees. But when people were putting
fake in their customer reviews it was triggering our algorithm and those products for coming down. (laughter) Of course that happen during the holidays, ’cause why wouldn’t it happen then. So again, like I said about partnership, we are constantly working on these tools to make them more effective. We fixed this problem. But that type of partnership helps us work on our proactive tools and that will ultimately
cut down on your workload. Brand registry is
something that we launched in April of 2018. It’s a new tool that were
using to help brand owners enforce their rights on Amazon. It’s completely free to all brand owners. It gives rights owners powerful
image search technology that I’ll give an example of. And it also allows rights owners to provide us with additional information which then we can feed back
into our technological tools to help prevent things from
even going live on Amazon. So why enroll? I mean that’s kind of the
ultimate question here. So the proprietary text
and search technologies will show you, I think for
me as user of brand registry, is one of the more compelling reasons. But as a seller you also get
increased detail page controls, which is also appealing. For new instances submitted
through brand registry 95% of those are removed
within eight hours. And for brands that are in brand registry, we notice an 88% decrease in the notices they have to submit. And in the interest of saving time, getting through with this that
we can go to the reception, I’m not going to read you all
of the enrollment criteria, but we really want to just ensure that your rights are legitimate. And then to get information
that’s gonna help us help you. Here’s a quick screenshot of
the report a violation tool. This is something that you
can use to search globally, as can be used to search
all of the Amazon websites, and you can also search by image. And you can submit multiple
notices of infringement. Some of the feedback that we’ve received is that people don’t
want to continuously keep filling out the infringement forms. So this allows you to
do a bulk submission, which will streamline your workflow. You also get a way of tracking
all of your submissions. So if you want to review
a lot of the reports and things you’ve submitted, status, that can help you run your
own metrics on enforcement. Or even help you kind of troubleshoot an issue that you’re seeing with Amazon. Then help us in that partnership to be more effective
in taking things down. So, I’m going to date myself here, but if you recall in the 1980s there was a commercial
for a company called A Hair Club for Men. And at the end of that commercial the CEO would say I’m
not just the president of A Hair Club for Men, I’m also a client. So here’s my similar pitch. Not only am I encouraging folks to sign up and use brand registry as a tool to protect their own brands, I and my team use it to enforce
Amazon intellectual property on the Amazon sites. So one of the problems
that we’ve been seeing and increasing enforcing against is sellers who add Amazon logos to their details page images. So I’m not exactly sure
why people do this, ’cause their images are
appearing on Amazon anyway, but there is I guess some perceived lift in having an Amazon logo
on your detail page image. This is particularly
problematic on a seasonal basis. So you see a lot of this during
Prime Day or Black Friday. We can upload an image of the Amazon logo through the report a violation tool, and that will actually find that logo appearing on detail page images. So if you’re searching
for something similar you can imagine what a
powerful tool that could be. And then using the sorting
features on the side of the report a violation tool, you can then drill down and separate out logos that might be appearing on some of Amazon’s private label products, like our Basics products, or on someone who really
shouldn’t be using it. We then submit these violations through the report a violation tool, and most of these are
down in a matter of hours. So, if you do have an issue on Amazon here’s all the different
ways you can reach out to us. Brand registry is the one that
I recommend and use myself. You can also use a public notice form, and the link is in the materials. You can email [email protected] if you wanna contact us by email. And then a couple of
suggestions to end on. One, clearly articulate the rights that you were trying to assert. I was in private practice for 12 years, and I know that there is kind of a feeling that if I throw every type of
violation into my complaint, maybe it’ll be more effective. That’s really not the case. And that can sometimes confuse
or slow down the process. So don’t throw everything out
the wall and see what sticks. Focus on partnership, we wanna help. I’m here, I’ll be at the reception. If you have an issue give
me your business card, maybe write the problem on the back and we will get back in touch with you. Thank you. (audience applauds) – You might have thought
that Mike Kelly from Amazon was here to talk about Amazon’s policies, but really he was paid
$5000 by Hair Club for Men. (laughter) And I felt the need to disclose that, Because I was paid $10,000 by a competitor for Hair Club for Men,
to show you what happened when I went to Hair Club for Men. (laughter) Now, I tried to bring
just a little bit into reality what’s going on on the internet. Because that’s what’s going on. The purpose of trademark law, according to the books I teach from and Professor McCarthy’s treatise, which has been cited over 6000 times by courts in the United
States, are two fold, to protect brand owners
and their investment, and their brands. And to protect consumers. Thus, we all know, you
can argue trademark cases along both of those lines. Consumer confusion is
a doctrine that grew up to effectuate this policy
goal of protecting consumers. If you think about it a
little bit more deeply, and you go back a little bit further, I suppose in the history and
foundations of trademark law, both of those could be
subsumed under even yet a more general goal. Which is a trademark cements the bond between the brand owner and
the public, the consumer. And much of trademark law,
for the last hundred years, has sought to keep that bond cemented. And you can look at
almost every aspect of it from likelihood of confusion of delusion, to fair use and its limitations. So where does that bring
me in the online world? Well I was asked by Barton
Beebe and Jeanne Fromer at NYU if I would say a few words
about a very provocative book, written not by a trademark lawyer but by a professor of
marketing at Stanford, Itamar Simonson and his
co-author Emanuel Rosen. Who wrote a book and
published it four years ago called Absolute Value. And I got to thinking about this book because it sits right
here at this intersection between the trademark as a legal entity, and the trademark as a
marketing entity, if you will. And what he says, and this
is just for my review I quote from him, that I got from Amazon, “Going against conventional
marketing wisdom, “Absolute Value reveals
what really influences “customers today. “And offers a new framework,
he calls it the influence mix. “A total new way of thinking about “consumer decision-making and marketing. “And about brands. “And about developing more
effective business strategies. “How people buy things
has changed profoundly “in the age of the internet. “Yet the fundamental thinking
about consumer decision making “and marketing, has not.” I would say the same for trademark law. “Most marketers still believe “that they can shape
consumers’ perceptions, “and control brand identity, “and drive consumer behaviors.” In this book Professor Simonson argues that that’s not so much the case anymore because of the influencer mix. And what he points to is
reviews of products online. Consumer reviews, professional reviews. Have you ever gone on YouTube and looked at all the allegedly professional reviews of everything? I cannot tell you how much
time my 16-year-old son looks at these and then shows them to me. And every time my eyes glaze over, I lay in bed, and I said,
“I think he’s being paid.” And my son says “No, he’s not. “He’s, you know, potty boy,” or whoever. It’s, I don’t know, “it’s so and so. “He’s famous. “He has a Lamborghini.” And I’m like, “he’s being paid.” And what resonates with me about this is this is about trademarks
in an online world. Well the online world it really
is only what 15 years old. And one of the questions it raises for me is what is the reliability, I know it’s 1999, don’t mock me. But I mean things didn’t
really get cooking until 2005. What is the reliability
of the information mix that we’re getting. Who’s putting it there? Maybe the brand owners,
maybe their competitors. But the reliability of the
brand is being impacted by it, greatly. Advertising companies know this. They’re working with the brand owners to put this information out there. Is it being regulated? No. The Federal Trade Commission
wants to regulate it as a form of negative
advertising, or false advertising. Is it being regulated? No. I ask the question of
the folks on the panel, particularly the platforms,
and the lawyers who are here who represent brand owners, what is happening in the world? Are you ever ask by clients to
get some reviews taken down? Because you didn’t place them, and you think that they’re
hurting your company, and they’re false. Have you ever, if they
wanna answer this question, worked with advertisers to put reviews up? And what if anything,
should be our attitude and our viewpoint towards this? So with that, I wanna put that question to the platforms online,
put ’em on the spot and ask them a little bit about policy. Or to the lawyers, anybody
who wants to speak to it, from the panel, if you have something that you’ve got to address that question. – So we do take, I think I have a couple of comments. First of all I do agree
that the online world is very different from the offline world in a sense of how you’re
shape the consumer. So in fact our platform, the reason we offer
different business model on different platforms is to offer the rights of the flexibility
of doing their own shaping. So for example, I give
you an example for that. So on our platforms, if
you go to our platform to do a search a item in China, so you will see a mix
of items from Taobao, which is a C2C platform, as well as a B2C, who’s Tmall. So Tmall is actually a
brand driven platform, meaning that a brand can
put on their flagship shop, and advertise their own product. But generally speaking
we put the Tmall items ahead of Taobao items. So the reason are twofold. First of all, the Tmall is
actually pay the customers so we want to promote their traffic. But at the same time, for
brand owners this is actually a great tool for advertisement. The consumer want to look for information. Now in China, people
don’t go to brand website to look for information. They probably search online
but then the online information is influenced by a lot of other factors. It’s not totally reliable. But they do search on our platforms. And the information
that they will see first is brand owned flagship shop. So if you put information on there then the consumer can
see that information, that actually shaped
their shopping behavior. They may not necessarily
purchase from the flagship shop, but when they go to the C2C platform, try to find the sale and
maybe offer a better price, of a better service. Maybe they offer purchase
from a foreign marketplace and ship back to China. No matter what, but they’re
armed with the information that provided by brand. So this is actually important to, not necessarily in IP enforcement, but seeing as IP enforcement
are related to market, it’s at least a very
good thing to think about when you have a strategy in China. Obviously you need to secure your brand. You need to secure a marketing strategy. But that at least should
be in your toolbox. Now for the consumer review part we do find, it’s actually we call this gray-black marketplace. Because it’s not clearly unlawful. Probably is unlawful, but there’s not so many
cases dealt with this issue. But what we use, as I already said in my presentation, we
have transaction data, and logistic data, all those things. We actually have an algorithm
that designed to detect those fake reviews. Because you want to see the
transaction actually happens. You want to see the
logistic actually happens. And then you think of the
review, maybe, is it legit? – [David] Can I just interrupt you? You can tell from your algorithm if the reviewer engaged in
the relevant transaction? – Yes, because we have a payment system. So all our transaction on our platform is done through our Ant Financial, so we can see the transaction. And we have a logistic
arm that’s basically show the tracking information. So we want to see the
transaction happened. We want to see the logistic happened. And then review, maybe
more, but not necessarily. But then there are other
patterns that we look for to try to find those fake reviews. In fact I think that we
already filed a lawsuit against some company or individual, I forgot, probably individual, actually bulk putting up those fake reviews. So we do take that very serious. – [David] Do we have any
questions from the audience? Okay, yeah, go ahead. – [Woman] Sorry, I know everyone
wants to leave. (laughs) In this age of the ecommerce
and obvious globalization, what do you guys think the future of global trade rules
and laws will look like? Do you anticipate that the
laws will proactively change to accommodate, or will businesses
have to get more and more creative to navigate the new IP landscape? Thank you. – No, I think the law
definitely will change. China has already
implemented ecommerce law. But I don’t think certain principles like territorial principle will change. So you have to find a creative way to navigate the system. And we are trying. In fact we have an initiative called the EWTP which sort of tried to reduce the tariff for things like that, to facilitate small business to do cross-border transaction. But I think it’s actually a combination of involvement in law
and the creative thinking of the platforms. We provide the tools, we
try to reduce the time, of the logistic to do
cross-border transactions, but at some point you need
to comply with the law. So at least so far for us, we have operate our online
notice take down system without any clear guidance
in China for a long time. And our principle is just
to address the issue. So that’s our principle. We need to comply with law, but our goal is to address the issue. So I see that principle will apply to any of those cross-border transactions. – That it? We’ll let it be done with that. Alright, I think what we’re gonna do is say thank you to the panel, please. (audience applauds) And before you leave, we
have a lovely reception with variety types of alcohol and food across the hall. I do wanna thank our
sponsors and speakers, I wanna thank NYU, first of all, if you would give a
hearty thank you to NYU, (audience applauds) for being so gracious to host us, and to Jeanne Fromer and Barton Beebe and Michael Weinberg,
the Executive Director. They put in a lot of
work to make this happen. I wanna thank Golden Gate University and the McCarthy Institute and
everybody who worked for them including AMS, Associated
Management Solutions, who has helped us with offsite logistics. If you would say thank
you to those people. I also wanna thank the speakers. All of the speakers were fantastic. And we were fortunate to have them. The sponsors Seed IP, Russ Pangborn, Sheppard Mullin, the EUIPO, Perkins Coie, Fish Analysis Group, Hogan Lovells, Keystone, Banner Witcoff, Unitalen, INTA, Bereskin & Parr, Debevoise and Plimpton, we thank all of them. And I want to give you
also two announcements, we’re going to have another conference, McCarthy Institute at the USPTO in Alexandria, Virginia
on anti-counterfeiting on June 6th of this year. And then another one on September 26th, and September 27th, at the EUIPO office and theater in Alicante, Spain. And it’s going to focus
on global trademark rights and issues, and the TM5, and so we look forward to seeing at least some of you I hope
at some of these other events. So thank you very much
and enjoy yourselves. (audience applauds)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *