gatwick.com dispute

[Dave Zan]

Got this from another forum:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09...omain_dispute/

I'd hate to imagine if that happened to me...

[jberryhill]

"The majority of arbitrators come from the intellectual property world, so there is immediately an inherent bias."

That's just plain goofy. IP lawyers spend just as much time working for defendants as they do plaintiffs. Does this author think IP lawsuits don't have lawyers on both sides?

[chatcher]

Got this from another forum:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09...omain_dispute/

I'd hate to imagine if that happened to me...

If there is one thing worse than getting screwed, it's helping foot the bill to pay for it. (Kind of like the reason I don't carry a gun - I would hate to be shot under any circumstances, but I would feel like a real idiot if I was shot with my own gun!)

Maybe he should have just accepted a one-member panel, expecting to possibly lose, and put his money toward an appeal in a real court.

[dvdrip]

I think I am the 3rd in line! Bring it on BAA!

[jberryhill]

It's a run-of-the-mill geographic name case, e.g. http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2000-0638.html (which is even more specific). Why this attorney feels compelled to grandstand and throw rocks at the people who will be deciding the case is a mystery to me.

One of my favorite decisions, in which the respondent spent more effort fighting the process than fighting the dispute, is this classic:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2000-1286.html

[chatcher]

...One of my favorite decisions, in which the respondent spent more effort fighting the process than fighting the dispute, is this classic:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2000-1286.html

Thanks for sharing that one. Reading it made me feel, somehow, a little less "eccentric".

[David G]

........One of my favorite decisions, in which the respondent spent more effort fighting the process than fighting the dispute, is this classic:http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2000-1286.html

Talk about a Classic Case, WOW. Hard to believe the ins and outs and twists and complexity of the case made by the Respondents. It's almost like reading a book, I was worn out after reading it.

Thanks John for posting the link.

[draqon]

Yeah, that case was great. I liked the part where the Respondent claimed that the WIPO panel's decision might cause global governmental rifts and cause the American and Chinese governments to go into a military faceoff. Egocentric delusions that severe really suggest severe mental illness such as bipolar disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. I like the freedom of speech as much as the next American, but there is something to be said about revoking some people's right to use the internet.

[Dave Zan]

One of my favorite decisions, in which the respondent spent more effort fighting the process than fighting the dispute, is this classic:http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2000-1286.html

People are such weird and funny creatures...

[jberryhill]

Egocentric delusions

I'm glad you brought that up.

Now, figure out what is going on here: www.wyith.com , www.wyith.edu &c.

http://wyith.com/corporate/management/ruthditucci/

[chatcher]

http://wyith.com/corporate/management/ruthditucci/

Looking at her photo, you can almost imagine her saying the things she said in the internicregistrations dispute (in her "singleminded perseverant manner") . But it is nice to know the DOC didn't completely ruin her business, to say nothing of the fact that we haven't yet gone to war (at least not in the traditional sense) with China.

[jberryhill]

Do you find any third party references to this "Wyith" outfit?

[Garry Anderson]

Getting back to the actual case in question - which must be more corrupt than most:

The British Airport Authority (BAA) has been making potentially fraudulent and libelous allegations.

Using somewhat devious means, BAA have falsely accused Bob Larkin of infringing upon what they claim to be 'their' trademark.

This is despite the absolute facts that BAA has not registered the trademark in question, the word is geographical place name used by other businesses and Bob was not working in same goods and services as BAA.

I believe BAA lawyers should have advised them they cannot legally prevent all other businesses from using geographic word in different goods or services - however, BAA lawyers may be thinking of their money.

Bob contacted several people about his 'problem' - he was keen to prove himself innocent of these false charges.

Here is edited version of my reply:

I would be most annoyed in your position - after all, have you not been libelled by BAA - being called a cybersquatter?

Should case be found against you, WIPO will corroborate this defamation - which could be used in future complaints against you.

These people at BAA seem most unscrupulous as any we have seen.

Gatwick Fusion Limited have registered the trademark word "Gatwick" - why not the BAA?

Strategic Rail Authority have registered the 'stylised' trademark "GATWICK EXPRESS"
(stylised means a word presented other than in a regular typeface).

Gatwick Airport Limited registered trademark words "GATWICK AIRPORTER"
Which it seems they only got "because of distinctiveness acquired through use".

However, BAA Enterprises Limited did register the 'device & word' "Gatwick Parking"
(device & word is a mark consists of a pictorial representation together with a word element).

Is the reason why BAA has not registered the trademark word "Gatwick" possibly because the Patent Office would not allow it?

Perhaps BAA hope to register it "because of distinctiveness acquired through use" - stopping others using it in business (like you).

Incidentally, the word "Gatwick" was once registered with USPTO as trademark by New York company for men's and women's suits,
sportcoats, trousers & skirts.

If BAA went to a court of law, with an unregistered trademark for the geographic word "Gatwick", does this allow them to legally prevent others from using the same geographic word in different goods or services?

I think not - as you know, this is called overreach.

...

As to UDRP three tests:

1. Similar name: Other businesses also legally use the word "Gatwick" - and so would be telling a lie to claim exclusivity of use. You are no more infringing upon BAA as any other business.

2. Respondent has intellectual property rights: You had the first idea to register the generic domain Gatwick.com for business use. Providing you use it lawfully (including not infringing upon trademarks) - it is your intellectual property to do with as you will. You can use it for any type of business you like or sell it for such a purpose.

This test puts onus on respondent to prove 'innocence' or "defend itself against the allegations" as WIPO so put it - without the trademark holder having to prove infringement of their mark - and so highlighting the corrupt biased nature of WIPO UDRP.

UN WIPO and all lawyers know that (whether civil or criminal) complainant (or prosecution) has burden of proving case.

[Yet WIPO complainant does not have to prove his case - the five factors examined in EVERY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ACTION]

3. Bad faith: The artificially provoked agreement to rent domain to third party after being pressed to sell. They abet the breaking of rules - isn't this called entrapment?

Their argument is false anyway - you were using domain as business directory before they pressed you to sell - not infringing upon BAA. You are perfectly legally entitled to sell your domain.

It is overreach for BAA to prevent others conducting lawful business that do not infringe upon them. So - how exactly were you infringing upon BAA?

By the way - if UDRP rules state that a dictionary word domain used by other businesses cannot be offered for sale to a trademark holder (as it may be considered 'Bad faith') - yet you can offer these dictionary words to others - isn't that a stupid state of affairs?

...

This is all my true informed opinion - obviously check with a lawyer before using any of it.

[john cordingley]

Well im totaly behind bob larkin on this one...
wipo are getting away with murder with the way they behave...
They are not playing fair ...in fact the more i read about certain cases that have and still are taking place the more they make wipo look like a dictatorship...
If this was a court of law here in england they would be laughed out of court, to think that these people work for the good of the internet ..
I think its time for a change..........
dont give in bob
John

[jberryhill]

wipo are getting away with murder with the way they behave

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't get the impression this case was decided.

[jberryhill]

wipo are getting away with murder with the way they behave


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't get the impression this case was decided.

By the way, see my comment above concerning a run-of-the-mill geographic name case.

The decision has been published:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2004-0555.html
(complaint denied)

<yawn>

Oh, and Garry, it is interesting to see that not only do you dispense legal advice to people, but you also publish it without their consent. Class act there.

And congratulations to Mr. Larkin's grandstanding and self-aggrandizing attorney for not irritating the panelists with extraneous BS to the point where they lost objectivity.

[Dave Zan]

LOL. You got faster hands, John: I was about to post the link to that domain's
UDRP which was recently concluded (just got it in my email).

Thanks, anyway. Now it remains to be seen if the Complainant will sue the
registrant for it in Court...

[dvdrip]

Sue the registrant? I would love to see them lose again.

[Garry Anderson]

John> Oh, and Garry, it is interesting to see that not only do you dispense legal advice to people, but you also publish it without their consent. Class act there.

You make another false unsubstantiated claim John - here is extract of email to Mr. Larkin.

Garry> I will make my previous email to you public - how about that?

Bob> Yes, that would be ideal.

At least my claims have substance - like that you avoid talking about the fact that tort does not not have to be proven against the Complainant in UDRP - contrary to civil law ;-)