Interesting wipo decision

"Even though the domains were clearly identical to PRL's trademarks and there was no evidence the current holder had a legitimate right to them, Donahey said he couldn't conclude that the addresses were being used in bad faith if they pointed to PRL's own Web site."

http://www.bizreport.com/article.php...b78&width=1280

[beatz]

So now it's bad faith or not is more important than actual TM law?!
Not saying TM holders should have a general right to "their" domains but it just shows that WIPO is ANYTHING but a court that would decide on LAW.So this time it's ok enuff to just redirect a domain to the TM holders site for a while to prove "no bad faith"?! Good for me.But next time it might be the other way around again.They seem to make decisions based on if they got laid last night or not.

beatz, yeah I agree, it seems very inconsistent.

scott donahey is a blithering idiot imo.

i've seen him use his own dissent in one case as the basis for a decision in another (even though his dissent was outvoted 2 for 1 by other panelists).

he doesn't seem to grasp the udrp rules in any size shape or form.

As an example of what I mean about him, it says he went off and looked at the web site and allowed that to influence his decision. The UDRP is supposed to be decided based on submitted evidence as the respondent could have simply changed the content once they got notice of the dispute.

[RacerX]

Donahey did not have ANY evidence of bad faith before him--as the record clearly showed. Bad faith is REQUIRED for a finding for the Complainant. How then does his denial of the complaint cause you such confusion?

Have you even ever had to deal with URDP yourself?? RacerX has on several occasions, and from the Racer's experience, Donahey is a pragmatic and honest judge, among the vast majority of judges. Only a select few spoil the lot.

Here is a suggestion: Get your law degree first, before you start calling judges idiots. Spend a little more time reading cases instead of this forum and you will help all.

He's not a judge he's a panelist. He is there, as are all panelists, to view complaints based on those rules and to follow them.

The rules are laid out in the UDRP itself, the UDRP rules and the final staff report.

The UDRP is not "law" and does not always follow legal principles.

By the way, I run a site called domainshame.com - if you go there you will see i have read lots, and i mean lots of udrp cases from start to end.

Heres another way the complaint could have been interpreted.

Because the registrant was pointing the domain at rlp's site, it could have been argued that he clearly knew of rlp at the point of registration and during its duration and had no interest in the name other than to make rlp aware of its existence through their logs.

Also, the fact there is potential for bad faith usage further down the line has been used in the past as reason enough for panelists.

[RacerX]

is under contract law---ALL registrants agree to this contract when a name is registered. It is a CONTRACT and the UDRP lies under CONTRACT law as a binding accord between registrar and registrant.

Read up on the definition of arbitration please. ALL panelists are arbitration judges here. Semantics aside, get a grip.

The only conctract is that all registrants are bound by their decision, rather than that the udrp will be based on true law.

The actual UDRP process itself is not law. You can take a case to a real court afterwards and their decision overrides the udrp which is just a fast track dispute resolution service.

[RacerX]

son, ARBITRATION is a recoginized form of justice that is recognized AND sanctioned by the courts. PERIOD. The legal system fully supports arbitration as a less formal but nevertheless LEGITIMATE form of dispute resolution. Just as an appeals court can overturn a previous ruling of course, arbitrated decisions can be overturned. RacerX should be charging for its free tutorials in this forum.

[DnPowerful]

Still think safesys is a moron??

Sounds like the last two statements are not contradictory, and now you're sharpening knives over a hair strand of difference.

But meanwhile, you look stupid for calling him a moron when he's clearly not--and knows just as much as you.

Respect. This forum needs more respect. Especially when it's deserved.

[beatz]

RacerX
You're wrong.
Fact is, it's panelists,not judges.
Fact is, a name can be taken away from you even if you did NOT have bad faith when registering.
Why - cuz there exists LAW that doesn't care about UDRP.TM law being one of it.

Ridiculous to say you can keep ANY name as long as they can't prove bad faith.That's why a TM holding company will always go to a real court - because there is ruled on the basis of real LAW.

Fact also is,that as a registrant i am FORCED to agree to the UDRP when i want to register a name.Otherwise there is no chance to register a domain at all.
So that's not free will - and i bet the whole UDRP as well as ICANN and WIPO could have a hard time when heavily questioned in a REAL court.

Heres a real courts interpretation of where the UDRP stands in relation to real law:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/...ON=01-1197.01A

First, the UDRP clearly contemplates judicial intervention and, in fact, that the judicial outcome will override the UDRP one. See UDRP ¶ 4(k) (stating that UDRP proceedings shall not prevent either party from "submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution"); World Intellectual Property organization, The Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property Issues: Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process ¶ 150(v), at http://wipo2.wipo.int/process1/report/finalreport.html (Apr. 30, 1999) [hereinafter First WIPO Report] (stating that UDRP administrative dispute resolution procedures "should not have (and cannot have) the effect of binding precedent in national courts"); id. at ¶ 196(v) (stating that "[a] decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, that is contrary to a determination resulting from the administrative procedure should . . . override the administrative determination").

[RacerX]

concurs with the cited legal reference. The two (courts and arbitration panels) recognize eachother just as the 'ole RacerX advised. See Sandra Day O'Connor's article below for anyone still thick enough around here that does not believe the Racer's sage counsel regarding the usage of arbitration!


(http://www.westernjustice.org/dedication.htm)



Transcript of Remarks by
Sandra Day O'Connor
Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States

On the Occasion of the Dedication Ceremony
for the Friends Building of the
Western Justice Center Foundation

Made at the Ambassador Auditorium
in Pasadena, California
on February 8, 1999

"The original Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals court building was in San Francisco. The Court of Appeals judges from Southern California had chambers in a court building in downtown Los Angeles. In 1986 the Government dedicated the old Vista del Arroyo Hotel here in Pasadena to a federal Court of Appeals building for Southern California. Along with the hotel came the 12 vacation bungalows on the grounds of the old hotel. The Court of Appeals judges who were to occupy the Pasadena Courthouse were concerned about the future use of the bungalows. The bungalows were, after all, in their own yard or cartilage, so to speak.

"A Remarkable Bit of Community Action and Ingenuity"

In a remarkable bit of community action and ingenuity in 1985, a group of judges and some local lawyers decided to form the Western Justice Center Foundation and to use some of the bungalows for related programs and activities. The original purpose of the Foundation was to provide research on the uses of alternative dispute resolution methods, and to develop strategies for improving the administration of justice. The founders envisioned a center of scholarship and research on the peaceful resolution of disputes, and seminars and conferences on innovative ways to improve our justice system.

The Foundation worked with the City of Pasadena to acquire four of the bungalows. The City purchased them from the federal General Services Administration and then leased them to the Foundation on a long-term basis.

In the years that followed, the Foundation raised the funds to renovate the Richard Keatinge Building, which was dedicated in 1994 by my colleague, Justice Kennedy. In 1996 the second building was restored and leased to the Pacific Oaks Research Center, an institution doing research on early childhood education, conflict resolution and race-bias reduction. It was dedicated by then Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas of the California Supreme Court. Today, we celebrate the restoration of the third building, the Friends Building, with an initial grant from the Irvine Foundation. There is one more building to be renovated -- the Maxwell House -- so stay tuned for a fourth dedication ceremony a year or so down the road, as we say, in the next Millennium.

"A Catalyst Organization"

Along with the renovation of the buildings, the Foundation itself was renovated in a sense. It became more of a catalyst organization to bring together other organizations to focus on particular projects. The result was development of a dispute resolution system for intergovernmental conflicts in the Southern California region, and, also, a system for conflict resolution in the public schools. It also developed an international consortium with the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes, which has provided some assistance in South Africa.

The Foundation can point to some concrete accomplishments in programs as well as the physical plant. Today 25 school systems are using, teaching, and applying the Foundation's model curriculum on conflict resolution. The Race Unity and Diversity Consortium is succeeding in replicating its Pasadena pilot project in cities and towns across the state. The Ninth Circuit Appellate mediation evaluation project is now well in place. The South African program has produced additional interactive programs in 20 locations in California.

The Friends Building which we dedicate today will house a regional division of the Casey Foundation which is devoted to the development of ways to mentor, protect, and enhance the lives of foster children, as well as housing other organizations concerned with childhood development. It will also house FACS[the Foundation for American Communications], an organization for education of the media about law, justice, and alternative dispute resolution. The Casey Foundation Center is headed by Dr. Katherine Gabel, a remarkable and talented woman whom I first knew in the early 1970s in Arizona, when she headed the first of that State's juvenile prison facilities. She brings a lifetime of experience working with children to her new work with the Casey Foundation.

Now all of this is a bit of background on why we are gathered here today. It also explains why I am so pleased to be here. Although I am the Ninth Circuit Justice it is my first visit to the Richard Chambers Courthouse and its neighboring bungalows.

"We Must Find Ways to Mend the Tears in Our Social Fabric"

A principal focus of the Western Justice Center Foundation is on nonjudicial dispute resolution. In our country it is an important focus, indeed. Americans are the most litigious people in the world today. Our judicial system has been too successful in some ways.

Within our communities, disputes between neighbors and citizens are common. Squabbles between neighbors over yards, dogs, fences and boundaries have always existed. But in the past few years, we have witnessed rioting in the streets of major cities, and frequent breakdowns in the relationships between employers and their employees. We have been made painfully aware of the violence within our schools by the ghastly school shootings in Oregon and Arkansas. Even within churches, disputes have arisen between ministers and congregations, retiring pastors and new pastors and members of a religious institution's hierarchy.1 I have even read a report of a conflict arising from a congregation's accusation that its minister had an "unbending" biblical interpretation.2 In short, conflict can be found throughout our community, including those parts of our community — families, schools and churches — that, for a long time, have functioned to resolve disputes, not initiate them.

Pundits have suggested a number of theories to explain the growing number of conflicts within our community, ranging from rapid industrialization and urbanization to a general break down in societal mores. While it is important to identify the causes of conflict in our society, regardless of the cause, we must find ways to mend the tears in our social fabric arising from these disputes. In short, we must find ways to resolve more of the disputes that permeate our society, and do so effectively and nonviolently.

"Alternatives to Full Adjudication are Numerous and Accessible"

Not all disputes are amenable to adjudication in court. With apologies to any plaintiffs' lawyers present today, the courtroom may be a poor vehicle for resolving some disputes because the adversarial process can work to increase tension between adversaries rather than settle it. One reason is that a court must focus on the particular dispute before it and not formulate long-term solutions to complex community problems. If there is no broader approach to resolve these conflicts, even a local dispute can end in violence.

In the context of cases in the courts, alternatives to full adjudication are numerous and accessible. For example, litigants have the option of seeking resolution through neutral evaluation, negotiation, arbitration, mediation, or even summary jury trials. This range of alternative dispute resolution options have benefited the legal system not only relieving some congestion in the dockets of courts, but also by providing an effective, less costly, and often more satisfying means to resolve the disputes".

I too could also resort to namecalling with you RacerX, but I think I'll pass.

Nobody is questioning the usage of arbitration or its binding nature (thanks to the registration agreement that applies to ALL gtld registrations), just the fact that the UDRP does not USE legal principles, it uses *its own rules* to fasttrack cases - that was the original point. And these rules are not followed uniformly or, in my opinion correctly, in many cases including the one you cited.

[RacerX]

does not like to namecall either. RacerX does not see you in the light previously described. Sorry. In the spirit of the great Bill O'Reilly's no spin zone, you are welcome to the last word you so covet.

You called me a moron and thick - or was that another member of the RacerX collective? (why do you talk in the third person all the time when it comes to personal comment?)

Hi safesys

DomainShame.com contains much useful info. Thanks for taking the trouble to maintain it.

Some forum members can be safely ignored ... like many poorly designed but flashy web sites.

host1515

[NameBox]

Originally posted by RacerX
does not like to namecall either. RacerX does not see you in the light previously described. Sorry. In the spirit of the great Bill O'Reilly's no spin zone, you are welcome to the last word you so covet.

Why does RacerX insist on referring to him or herself in the third person. Quite funny actually.

NameBox says ( in his megalomaniacal third person reference evidencing Delusions of Grandeur), lets keep this forum free of insults and name calling!

Tried the third person thing ... just didn't feel right ... I must lack the requisite swollen head