Changes

| products        =  

| products        =  

| employees      =  82,500 as of 2010<ref>[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000095012311015783/f56033e10vk.htm#F56033112 Form 10-K]</ref>

| employees      =  82,500 as of 2010<ref>[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000095012311015783/f56033e10vk.htm#F56033112 Form 10-K]</ref>

| revenue        = $43.623 billion as of 2010 <ref>[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000095012311015783/f56033e10vk.htm#F56033112 Form 10-K]</ref>]

| revenue        = $43.623 billion as of 2010 <ref>[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000095012311015783/f56033e10vk.htm#F56033112 Form 10-K]</ref>

| website        = [http://www.intel.com www.intel.com]

| website        = [http://www.intel.com www.intel.com]

| blog            =

| blog            =

On January 26, 2010, Intel expressed its disappointment regarding the [[Special Trademark Issues]] Working Team (STI) Report on Trademark Protection on New [[gTLD]]s. The company was disappointed that many of the strategies recommended by the prior [[Implementation Recommendation Team]] (IRT) were not incorporated into the STI Team's report or any draft of the [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook|applicant guidebook]]. They noted that the IRT's recommendations effectively created a system of interworking mechanisms, which included a globally protected marks list, and that by leaving them out in the STI report, the effectiveness of any one measure was severely compromised. Intel urged [[ICANN]] to reconsider incorporating some of the IRT recommendations. Meanwhile, Intel acknowledged the benefits of a [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] as necessary protection tool for trademarks. The company suggested that its use and scope be expanded and that it should be used during new the gTLD pre-launch and during [[UDRP|Uniform Rapid Suspension System]] (URSS) and [[Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy]] (UDRP) proceedings for all TLDs, including existing ones. They also proposed that information submitted to the Trademark Clearinghouse be shared with [[Registry|registries]] and [[Registrar|registrars]], for the purpose of supporting RPM procedures, unless otherwise authorized by trademark owners. Intel believed that fees to submit trademarks to the Trademark Clearinghouse should be minimal. Regarding the URS process, Intel agreed that it would be a beneficial tool as long as the process was made less expensive and quicker.<ref>[http://forum.icann.org/lists/sti-report-2009/msg00068.html Intel Corporation Comments on STI Report]</ref>

On January 26, 2010, Intel expressed its disappointment regarding the [[Special Trademark Issues]] Working Team (STI) Report on Trademark Protection on New [[gTLD]]s. The company was disappointed that many of the strategies recommended by the prior [[Implementation Recommendation Team]] (IRT) were not incorporated into the STI Team's report or any draft of the [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook|applicant guidebook]]. They noted that the IRT's recommendations effectively created a system of interworking mechanisms, which included a globally protected marks list, and that by leaving them out in the STI report, the effectiveness of any one measure was severely compromised. Intel urged [[ICANN]] to reconsider incorporating some of the IRT recommendations. Meanwhile, Intel acknowledged the benefits of a [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] as necessary protection tool for trademarks. The company suggested that its use and scope be expanded and that it should be used during new the gTLD pre-launch and during [[UDRP|Uniform Rapid Suspension System]] (URSS) and [[Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy]] (UDRP) proceedings for all TLDs, including existing ones. They also proposed that information submitted to the Trademark Clearinghouse be shared with [[Registry|registries]] and [[Registrar|registrars]], for the purpose of supporting RPM procedures, unless otherwise authorized by trademark owners. Intel believed that fees to submit trademarks to the Trademark Clearinghouse should be minimal. Regarding the URS process, Intel agreed that it would be a beneficial tool as long as the process was made less expensive and quicker.<ref>[http://forum.icann.org/lists/sti-report-2009/msg00068.html Intel Corporation Comments on STI Report]</ref>

==References==

==References==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}</div>

[[Category:Companies]]

[[Category:Electronics]]