The Newzealand.com Decision

**Ari Goldberger** · 12-19-2002, 11:09 AM

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2002-0754.html

**Lew** · 12-19-2002, 11:20 AM

Excellent decision! Wish there were more like it.

**dtobias** · 12-19-2002, 11:35 AM

It looks like Her Majesty is now officially declared to be a reverse domain hijacker...

**Lew** · 12-19-2002, 12:13 PM

They must be in spin control over there. Gotta love it - maybe the press will have a field day with it - it would be good for the business - anyone have any contacts at the press?

**GeorgeK** · 12-19-2002, 12:48 PM

Perhaps UDRP should be updated, so that someone found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking (as in this case) has points against them when they try to go after other names? Just like someone who loses a UDRP case is a "cybersquatter", and that pattern can be raised by Complainants in other cases, to show bad faith.

**Lew** · 12-19-2002, 01:28 PM

I think you can rest assured that her majesty the queen will not have her name associated with any more domain battles

**DomainPairs** · 12-19-2002, 01:50 PM

It probably wasn't the queen anyway, it was probably our stupid government. they've given away all our other communication assets - they might as well give away the domains as well.

**pljones** · 12-19-2002, 02:15 PM

Definitely one of the biggest decisions of 2002. I'd like to know why it took WIPO three weeks to publish this decision.

**jberryhill** · 12-19-2002, 03:20 PM

First of all, you should know that Ari is too modest to mention that he represented the respondent in this case. He obviously did a stellar job on this one.

"I'd like to know why it took WIPO three weeks to publish this decision."

Perhaps Ari might provide us with some insight into that question, since the decisions are supposed to be published in three days.

One thing to note here is that certain folks at WIPO have been pushing to have country names included in the UDRP, according to the WIPO II proposals for the UDRP. One of the panelists in this case, Prof. Mueller, is virulently opposed to such expansion, as he sees it as a power grab by WIPO to exercise ever-increasing control over the internet name space. Since this dispute falls directly into the path of that debate, one might wonder whether there may have been some odd machinations prior to the time it was issued.

Ari?

**pljones** · 12-19-2002, 04:10 PM

Ari, congrats on the huge win. Are you representing Virtual Countries in the new PuertoRico.com case (WIPO Case D2002-1129)?

**jberryhill** · 12-19-2002, 04:13 PM

You know, that's kind of interesting... if you look at the date of the newzealand.com decision, it would appear that WIPO had received the puertorico.com complaint in the interval between the time that the NZ decision was made, and the time it was published.

**pljones** · 12-19-2002, 04:23 PM

The PuertoRico.com Complainant didn't have the NewZealand.com decision when their complaint was filed because the decision was only made publicly available today. But I'd be interested to see if they withdraw the complaint now. Obviously Virtual Countries can use this strong decision in their response.

**jberryhill** · 12-19-2002, 04:29 PM

"The PuertoRico.com Complainant didn't have the NewZealand.com decision when their complaint was filed because the decision was only made publicly available today."

That's right. The point, Patrick, is that WIPO had the NZ decision in their hands when the PR complaint was filed, and as you have pointed out, there was an unusually long delay between the time the NZ decision was made, and the time that WIPO published it.

**Ari Goldberger** · 12-19-2002, 04:47 PM

Ari, congrats on the huge win. Are you representing Virtual Countries in the new PuertoRico.com case (WIPO Case D2002-1129)?

Thanks for the nice comments. Yes, I am representing them in the Puertorico.com case.

**Drewbert** · 12-21-2002, 11:25 AM

Congrats Ari!

I cold be wrong but the long wait before the publication of the decision may have been because there was quite a bit of discussion going on between parties after the filing of the response - IIRC the decision mentions "complainants 2nd reply" or something.

Ari, did WIPO treat you fairly, as far as being allowed to respond to ALL filing made by the complainant?

**Ari Goldberger** · 12-21-2002, 12:49 PM

Drewbert-

Thanks for the nice comment. It is not appropriate for me to comment on any discussions between the parties. However, the time delay between the commencement of the proceedings and issuance of the decision was due, in part, to an extension I requested to file the response, and to an extension for the decision date imposed by the panel, which related to the panel's acceptance of my supplemental filings and its provision of time to the complainant to respond to those filings, including the allegation of reverse domain name hijacking.

There was no supplemental filing by Complainant of which to respond. However, I can state, without question, that WIPO was absolutely fair to both parties in all aspect of this proceeding, and has always been fair to the respondents in cases I have handled.

Best regards,

Ari

**bidawinner** · 12-21-2002, 12:54 PM

Cograts Ari !

Decision was as should be..

**DomainPairs** · 12-21-2002, 01:04 PM

I have been attacked for my comments on the ownership of MGMfilms.com.

Please could someone explain why I should be attacked for my comments as above, yet the depriving of the country of New Zealand of its domain name seems to meet with general approval.

I'm not taking sides here, I'm just interested in the apparent ambivalence of the Forum members

**Ari Goldberger** · 12-21-2002, 01:06 PM

One big difference is that MGM is a trademark, but New Zealand is not. It's just a country name.

**DomainPairs** · 12-21-2002, 02:14 PM

I understand the legal difference.

I was more interested in the moral difference. It has been implied that I am a thief for considering registering MGM films. Apart from the fact that the accuser doesn't understand the meaning of theft, it would seem that it is OK to deprive a country, but not a commercial entity.

The theft accusation seems to be on a par with the "property ownership is theft" concept.