Nice job John B!

[draggar]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-1946.html

The Respondent is Brendhan Hight, MDNH Inc, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America, represented by John Berryhill, United States of America.

I haven't had the time to read though it all but its good to see another generic has been defended.

[24HourDomainer]

Congrats! Well Done!

[adoon]

A comatose midget could have won that case. I am still waiting for someone to win a case that should have been lost. Most of these cases are pretty obvious and would likely be won without responding at all.

[jberryhill]

A comatose midget could have won that case.

His name is Pedro, and I keep him in a desk drawer. Whenever a UDRP response is needed, we apply cardio-shock electrodes to him, and dang can that boy respond to a UDRP.

I am still waiting for someone to win a case that should have been lost.

Cases that should lose, should lose.

Most of these cases are pretty obvious and would likely be won without responding at all.

That's because UDRP decisions are self-justifying. You assume that the summary in the decision is an accurate reflection of what was filed in the complaint and the response.

What you aren't taking into account is that the person summarizing the facts is also the person issuing the decision.

Compare these two outcomes:

zero.org:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ons/938092.htm
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
...
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <zero.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

zero.us:
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ons/938180.htm

Having established only one of the three elements required under the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

Now, clearly Pedro could have helped out on the zero.org case, but there's only so many things a comatose midget can do.

[linkdomain]

classic stuff, and congrats on outcome.

[HuntingMoon]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

His name is Pedro, and I keep him in a desk drawer. Whenever a UDRP response is needed, we apply cardio-shock electrodes to him, and dang can that boy respond to a UDRP.



Cases that should lose, should lose.



That's because UDRP decisions are self-justifying. You assume that the summary in the decision is an accurate reflection of what was filed in the complaint and the response.

What you aren't taking into account is that the person summarizing the facts is also the person issuing the decision.

Compare these two outcomes:

zero.org:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ons/938092.htm
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
...
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <zero.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

zero.us:
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ons/938180.htm

Having established only one of the three elements required under the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

Now, clearly Pedro could have helped out on the zero.org case, but there's only so many things a comatose midget can do.

interesting example, thanks.

[H2FC]

Good job JB....I hope you win them all....that is, the ones that should be won.

[tassos]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

What you aren't taking into account is that the person summarizing the facts is also the person issuing the decision.

Compare these two outcomes:

zero.org:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ons/938092.htm
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
...
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <zero.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

zero.us:
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ons/938180.htm

Having established only one of the three elements required under the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

Now, clearly Pedro could have helped out on the zero.org case, but there's only so many things a comatose midget can do.

J B is right !
thats how i lost fluke.biz ,
and at that time his opinion was right as always
our problem as domainers is to have someone fight and WIN for our rights
great job JB
by the way if you remember i still have "digestion" in greek language .gr and the law department from NY still looking to find who has that domain..
there is no whois for domains in dot gr
i told you i ll need your help with that
Tassos
http://www.tsili.eu

[Doc Com]

John,

Can you clarify one point:

"...the Center transmitted by email to Moniker Online Services, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 26, 2008, Moniker Online Services, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details."

Is this a matter of formality and done in every case?

Or was this a privacy issue, as in Privacy added to the WHOIS information?

[Carter]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

John,

Can you clarify one point:

"...the Center transmitted by email to Moniker Online Services, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 26, 2008, Moniker Online Services, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details."

Is this a matter of formality and done in every case?

Or was this a privacy issue, as in Privacy added to the WHOIS information?

I think that domain had privacy added to the whois...

[jberryhill]

You are both right, and there will be a "best practices" document coming out in the near future which describes some of the unwritten UDRP procedures. Guess who got roped into working with ICANN staff on that?

First, in every instance, the dispute resolution provider sends a verification email to the registrar to:

1. Notify the registrar of the proceeding, if the registrar had not already been informed,

2. Request confirmation of the whois data or otherwise have the registrar correct or update the whois data, and

3. Lock the name.

In this instance, I believe there was whois privacy, but the sequence of steps is the same whether there is or is not whois privacy, because the registrar's response to the verification notice is considered authoritative, regardless of what the whois says.

[Carter]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

You are both right, and there will be a "best practices" document coming out in the near future which describes some of the unwritten UDRP procedures. Guess who got roped into working with ICANN staff on that?

First, in every instance, the dispute resolution provider sends a verification email to the registrar to:

1. Notify the registrar of the proceeding, if the registrar had not already been informed,

2. Request confirmation of the whois data or otherwise have the registrar correct or update the whois data, and

3. Lock the name.

In this instance, I believe there was whois privacy, but the sequence of steps is the same whether there is or is not whois privacy, because the registrar's response to the verification notice is considered authoritative, regardless of what the whois says.

Thanks for the clarification
Very very interesting.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

You are both right, and there will be a "best practices" document coming out in the near future which describes some of the unwritten UDRP procedures. Guess who got roped into working with ICANN staff on that?

First, in every instance, the dispute resolution provider sends a verification email to the registrar to:

1. Notify the registrar of the proceeding, if the registrar had not already been informed,

2. Request confirmation of the whois data or otherwise have the registrar correct or update the whois data, and

3. Lock the name.

In this instance, I believe there was whois privacy, but the sequence of steps is the same whether there is or is not whois privacy, because the registrar's response to the verification notice is considered authoritative, regardless of what the whois says.

You da' bomb, Doc B.

Always an opportunity to learn something.

Yeah, got roped...come on, you begged to do it.