lawsuit started against NAF decision, but MONIKER told me to inform complainant?

[harleyx]

Self-justifying or not, I have to assume the people listed in the NAF decision are professionals without prejudice towards either party, and the information in that document is accurate regardless of the tone it carries.

The trademark reach of Yahoo is undeniably global.
Yahoo has a messenger program established for many years, with the listed trademarks.
The domain pointed to a website containing revenue generating links to messenger client programs.

Just based on that, I don't see how he can have a leg to stand on. Seems like a open shut case from my non-lawyerly perspective.

[jberryhill]

Self-justifying or not, I have to assume the people listed in the NAF decision are professionals without prejudice towards either party, and the information in that document is accurate

Indeed they are professionals. However, they are paid a pittance and like any attorneys are under a lot of time pressure. Having done over 60 UDRP's at NAF alone, I can state from direct experience that the facts are quite often garbled at one point or another in the decisions, and sometimes there are important lines of argument that are never addressed. I've become something of a sore winner since, regardless of having won a case, the factual errors and inaccurate characterizations of the arguments are still annoying.

As far as prejudice goes, there are panelists with an agenda, and I will someday write a long explanation of that. Many UDRP panelists also represent complainants, none ever represent respondents. I know of one instance in particular in which a UDRP panelist was serving in one case as a panelist that presented certain issues that were also raised in a case in which they were acting as an advocate. Under the normal "conflict" rules, we tend to look at the party represented because, in the real world judges are not attorneys. But, yes, issue-based conflicts have occurred.

Just based on that, I don't see how he can have a leg to stand on.

As I said, the substance of the case isn't as interesting as the respondent's apparent curious behavior.

[DNQuest.com]

Now, I realize, and the commentator on it being a "slam dunk" should realize that UDRP decisions are always self-justifying. The papers filed by the parties are not available, so of course the panel describes the facts in a way that suits the outcome.

I can attest to that. The panelist can only show what he wants to show. So if there is an agenda, he can easily justify themselves, and there is no way to debunk it unless you pay the $$$ to appeal the matter in court.

I wonder how many decisions would have been ruled differently if all the submissions were available for public viewing?

[domaingenius]

Correct me if I am wrong ,but the one thing that I get from this is that if one is expecting there to be any kind of UDRP complaint or legal action for any reason that one must seriously consider the location of the Registrar when registering domains . Is that correct ?. I have registered many of my domains through
Fabulous.com who are located in Australia , does that mean the natural jurisdiction is Australia ?. What of the registrar has several offices in UK, USA etc ,which one prevails ?.

Thanks
DG

[fab]

As far as prejudice goes, there are panelists with an agenda, and I will someday write a long explanation of that. Many UDRP panelists also represent complainants, none ever represent respondents.

Uh Oh, that sounds like bad news. This is just the info lots of us on the forum are looking for.

[jberryhill]

What of the registrar has several offices in UK, USA etc ,which one prevails ?

The one listed in your registration agreement IF the complainant has selected the location of the registrar as the mutual jurisdiction.

[domaingenius]

The one listed in your registration agreement IF the complainant has selected the location of the registrar as the mutual jurisdiction.

Oh right thanks. So what are the jurisdiction choices that the complainant can make instead of the location of the Registrar ?.

DG

[dvdrip]

As far as prejudice goes, there are panelists with an agenda, and I will someday write a long explanation of that.

John, I can't wait!!!!!!!!!

[locos]

Oh right thanks. So what are the jurisdiction choices that the complainant can make instead of the location of the Registrar ?.

DG

Mutual Jurisdiction is defined as "a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a) the principal office of the Registrar (provided the domain-name holder has submitted in its Registration Agreement to that jurisdiction for court adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from the use of the domain name) or (b) the domain name holder's address as shown for the registration of the domain name in Registrar's Whois database at the time the complaint is submitted to the Provider."


Good reading:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/udrp/process.html
and
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm

[domaingenius]

Mutual Jurisdiction is defined as "a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a) the principal office of the Registrar (provided the domain-name holder has submitted in its Registration Agreement to that jurisdiction for court adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from the use of the domain name) or (b) the domain name holder's address as shown for the registration of the domain name in Registrar's Whois database at the time the complaint is submitted to the Provider."


Good reading:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/udrp/process.html
and
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm

Thanks for the info, useful to know.

DG

Just a thought. If one set up on reseller account with say Resellerclub.com and then set the prices as being $10,000 to transfer a domain name away or change owner etc,what would happen if someone then won a UDRP against one of the domains registered in that reseller account ,i.e. could the winner of UDRP be forced to pay such amount ?.

DG

[Dave Zan]

could the winner of UDRP be forced to pay such amount ?

Been discussed before, but there's no monetary damages in UDRP. You'll need
a court order, much more enforcing it, to possibly collect such.

[domaingenius]

Been discussed before, but there's no monetary damages in UDRP. You'll need
a court order, much more enforcing it, to possibly collect such.

I am not talking of "Damages" at all , I am talking of a contract between the domain owner and the registrar requiring that any transfer OUT ,or any change of Registrant" incurs a ,say for example $10,000 charge. Has THAT been discussed before and what was the conclusion ?.

Thanks
DG