Diablo.com

**DaddyHalbucks** · 06-11-2003, 03:19 PM

What do you guys think of this decision==>

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/154596.htm

**DaddyHalbucks** · 06-11-2003, 03:24 PM

Here is the respondent's contact info from the WhoIs if any legal eagles want to help him==>

Diablo Design
2605 SW Murray Drive
Oklahoma City, OK 73119

**Mr Webname** · 06-11-2003, 03:43 PM

B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 29, 2002 immediately after Complainantâ€™s registration expired. Respondent is not currently using the <diablo.com> domain name.

Lessons to learn?

**DaddyHalbucks** · 06-11-2003, 04:18 PM

THIS IS A TERIBLE TERRIBLE DECISION

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 29, 2002 immediately after Complainantâ€™s registration expired.

SO..WHAT?

Respondent is not currently using the <diablo.com> domain name.

Since its registration, Respondent has not established a website at the disputed domain name.

AGAIN, SO..WHAT? WHAT CONSTITUTES USE? A WEBPAGE? HOW ABOUT EMAIL, OR A VPN, OR A LOAD BALANCER, ETC..ETC..

Respondentâ€™s registration and use of the domain name demonstrates that it lacks any rights or legitimate interests under Policy

THE COMPLAINANT HAS TO PROVE THEY HAVE TRADEMARK RIGHTS, WHICH THEY CLEARLY DO NOT HAVE TO A GENERIC SPANISH WORD SUCH AS DIABLO.

Respondentâ€™s registration of the <diablo.com> domain name immediately after Complainantâ€™s registration expired is evidence of bad faith registration and use with regard to Policy

HUH?

DOES ANYONE AGREE WITH ME, THAT IN FEDERAL COURT THIS CASE WOULD BE A SLAM DUNK FOR THE RESPONDENT?

**Spider** · 06-11-2003, 04:21 PM

I agree with you Hal. This domain should stay with the current owner.

**actnow** · 06-11-2003, 06:03 PM

I agree with DotComCowboy. Just because there is no website does not mean the name is not being used. I bet they were using it for email.

I thought if a name is dropped by someone who has a trademark on the name, they lose the right to demand the name back based on the trademark.

**GeorgeK** · 06-11-2003, 08:07 PM

The domain was registered in 1995, not 2002. NSI has wrong creation dates. Check www.internic.net.

**draqon** · 06-12-2003, 02:41 AM

if a registrant is too lazy to reply, he deserves to lose the domain. Likewise, if he is too lazy to keep up at least some of the whois details accurately.

**DaddyHalbucks** · 06-12-2003, 12:54 PM

No doubt the respondent shares some fault.

However, the primary blame goes to the panelist and an over-reaching complainant.

All domain owners lose when entities can grab generic domains to which they have no legal right.

**jberryhill** · 06-12-2003, 02:48 PM

"DOES ANYONE AGREE WITH ME, THAT IN FEDERAL COURT THIS CASE WOULD BE A SLAM DUNK FOR THE RESPONDENT?"

Uh, no.

If the domain registrant didn't answer a complaint in federal court, then they would probably lose there also.

**actnow** · 06-12-2003, 02:55 PM

I would speculate that the respondent is a small business man. And, he was intimidated by the large company coming after his domain.

Maybe, he got bad advise from someone, saying "why fight, they will win anyway."

Bottom line, the bully won!

**DaddyHalbucks** · 06-12-2003, 03:19 PM

If the domain registrant didn't answer a complaint in federal court, then they would probably lose there also.
++++++++++++++++

That wasn't what I meant. I meant a de novo action to overturn the arbitration.

**DNS Kidd** · 06-13-2003, 11:29 PM

It was established that the complaintant did have a TM on diablo.

The 2nd and 3d points might have been different if Diablo Design had a site using the name, and was doing business there. It was never proved, so the panelist had to guess no, and that was the basis for the loss.

Even if the respondent couldn't hire legal help, they should have responded to the UDRP. There may have beeen significant and valid points that would have tipped the decision in their favor.

The panelist seems to have a cavalier attitude in the decision, maybe just their style.

**DaddyHalbucks** · 06-13-2003, 11:59 PM

It was established that the complaintant did have a TM on diablo.
+++++++++++

Trademark rights are NOT "en gross" rights --they only pertain to the particular field of use, especially for a common descriptive Spanish word such as 'diablo.'

**DNS Kidd** · 06-14-2003, 12:23 AM

The new owner should have responded. With only speculation to go on, the panelist drew their own conclusions, and the TM holder won.

Some UDRP cases have been won with no information from the (non) respondent, but they would be a very small % of the non-transfer or reverse hijacking decisions.

**Sharpy** · 06-14-2003, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by jberryhill

Uh, no.

If the domain registrant didn't answer a complaint in federal court, then they would probably lose there also.

**Fearless** · 06-14-2003, 08:00 AM

Answering may not have helped. James A. Carmody is the worst arbitrator. That ding dong ruled against me on buypc.com.

**Sharpy** · 06-14-2003, 08:02 AM

gregr rears his head at the fine hour of 7:55

**DaddyHalbucks** · 06-14-2003, 11:52 AM

James A. Carmody is the worst arbitrator. That ding dong ruled against me on buypc.com.
+++++++++++++++++++

I disagree. My opinion is that Philip N. Argy from Australia is the worst WIPO arbitrator. He ruled against me on NDCS.ORG, even though approximately a dozen organizations around the world are using the acronym 'NDCS.' He ruled that my reply to a financial offer from the complainant constituted 'bad faith.'

That arbitration was so corrupt that the complainant hired a fellow WIPO arbitrator as their counsel to improperly influence the proceedings, thus destroying WIPO's promised 'neutral' forum.

If that weren't enough, after I filed a federal lawsuit to overturn the arbitration, we settled, and I transferred the domain in good faith with the condition that the complaint be withdrawn. WIPO still has not complied.

WIPO SUCKS!

**dtobias** · 06-14-2003, 08:58 PM

WIPO doesn't have the power to "withdraw" a complaint if it has already resulted in a published decision; the ICANN rules require that all decisions be published.