FCC.Com UDRP

**Dave Zan** · 10-12-2007, 09:02 PM

Well, another feather to JB's cap:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2007-0770.html

What makes this decision somewhat "special" is this:

The Panel finds that the Complainant’s failure to do so, irrespective of whether or not the failure was intentional (as to which the Panel makes no finding), constitutes an abuse of the Administrative Proceeding. The Reverse Domain Name Hijacking allegation succeeds.

I wonder why did the panelists include this bit, though:

This is not to say, of course, that the Federal Communications Commission for example would in such a situation necessarily be found liable to a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

Save face, maybe?

**Acro** · 10-13-2007, 01:31 AM

I loved the part where proof of establishment of the complainant was done via presentation of a link to the New York Social Diary, citing this gala.

**jberryhill** · 10-13-2007, 08:12 PM

There were a couple of chuckles in that proceeding.

This time I went on quite a frothing rant about how there are so many frivolous complaints which do not earn an RDNH because the panel will say something along the lines of "the Complainant didn't know what they were doing."

I said that when there is a "naive registrant" defense to cybersquatting, then there might be a credible "naive complainant" defense to RDNH.

I think the panel got it this time - particularly where they recognize that single member default proceedings don't necessarily come up with the right answer.