Pedro The Midget Scores

[jberryhill]

I think the respondent needs to make that claim before the panelists can make that ruling but from the writeup, it seems that they would have made that ruling if it was claimed.

No. RDNH is not some kind of "counter-claim" to be raised by the Respondent. Rule 15(e) simply says:

http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm

If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

There is nothing in there about the Respondent being required to raise it or prove it.

Is it worth pointing out sometimes? Yes. In this case, I believe I made it very clear what was going on, and the Panel did consider it. In situations this egregious, IMHO requesting an RDNH ruling seems superfluous. This panel evidently thinks it's okay to fill a complaint with crap.

I remember that name was part of the names that were stolen back in march 2008.

No.

Purchased for $241,000 in October 2006:

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/dom...es10_24_06.htm

Stayed with same registrant until July 2008.

[tomsa]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

No.

Purchased for $241,000 in October 2006:

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/dom...es10_24_06.htm

Stayed with same registrant until July 2008.

Maybe you should take a look at the thread (in particular this message).

Stephane Pacaud was the guy they stolen the name from.

[jberryhill]

I remember that name was part of the names that were stolen back in march 2008.

No.

Reported sale in October 2006 at DNJournal:

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/dom...es10_24_06.htm

Stayed with purchaser until July 2008.

[draggar]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

No. RDNH is not some kind of "counter-claim" to be raised by the Respondent. Rule 15(e) simply says:

http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm

If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

There is nothing in there about the Respondent being required to raise it or prove it.

Is it worth pointing out sometimes? Yes. In this case, I believe I made it very clear what was going on, and the Panel did consider it. In situations this egregious, IMHO requesting an RDNH ruling seems superfluous. This panel evidently thinks it's okay to fill a complaint with crap.

I didn't know that - I thought the respondent needed to accuse (bad choice of words before with claim?) the complainant of RDNH.

[jberryhill]

Stephane Pacaud was the guy they stolen the name from.

Ah, okay. He must have gotten it back.

I didn't know that - I thought the respondent needed to accuse (bad choice of words before with claim?) the complainant of RDNH.

They make it sound that way, don't they?

There is extreme resistance to finding RDNH because UDRP providers are commercially competitive and they don't want to bad mouth their own customers.

[Jeffreyw]

Do a Google search for "ant.com" and see what comes up in the paid ads. Yep, that's right - they are violating Google's ad terms by putting a URL in their ad text which they don't own.

Did you use this against the complainant?

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by Jeffreyw

Did you use this against the complainant?

I am not sure when that statement was made or how historically things would appear, but google has just recently changed their stance on competitors ads again (and I would imagine their own TOS).

Google is once again letting institutions bid on and redirect competitors ads.

In other words, Dell could bid on Apple keywords and have those keyword results redirected to a Dell site.

I don't know how in the hell they do it but Google has once again pissed off countless clients and is being threatened with numerous lawsuits.

Google's Rival Keyword Sales Go Wide
Google is expanding sales of company names as keywords for competitors despite a lawsuit by Rescuecom

Google (GOOG) is going global with an advertising strategy that has kicked up controversy in the U.S. and Europe. As part of its efforts to generate revenue from online ads, Google lets marketers in a handful of countries pay to surface their ads when a would-be customer searches for a rival's brand name.

Starting June 4, marketers in about 200 countries will be allowed to purchase rival trademarks as keywords to trigger display of "sponsored search" ads on Google. Honda, for instance, could bid to have one of its ads displayed when a consumer searches the term "Toyota." In recent years some companies have sued Google or the competing company, saying the practice is a form of trademark infringement.

Sorry, forgot that link:
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...511_791916.htm

[jberryhill]

Doc,

This is not a "rival keyword" situation - it is deceptive text in the ad. More I cannot say at this point.

[Dloganesq]

John:

Good work. One thing that caught my eye is Complainant’s accusation that Respondent “traffics” in domain names. A curious choice of words which makes domaining sound illegal and depraved. You were right in “pouring scorn” on their claims…

As an aside, if I were you, I’d take the kind gentleman above up on his offer to buy you a case of beer. I don’t drink it myself but my husband is fond of Shoals Pale Ale by Smuttynose Brewing Co. when we are in New England in the summer.

Again, nice job. Love the title of your post. (Congrats to Pedro also. He isn't the fellow who owns South of the Border, is he?)

Deb
__________________________________
Deborah A. Logan, Esq.
Intellectual Property, Internet & Technology Law
LIPTON, WEINBERGER & HUSICK
DLogan@domainlegalcounsel.com

[Chappy]

Regarding the subject of telephone conversations - has there ever been a case which hinged on information divulged in a telephone conversation? If the respondent simply denied saying what is alleged in a telephone conversation how could it ever be proved? Are people allowed to tape telephone conversations and submit that as evidence?

I have often said some dumb things on the telephone...

[actnow]

Originally Posted by Chappy

Regarding the subject of telephone conversations - has there ever been a case which hinged on information divulged in a telephone conversation? If the respondent simply denied saying what is alleged in a telephone conversation how could it ever be proved? Are people allowed to tape telephone conversations and submit that as evidence?

I have often said some dumb things on the telephone...

That is an interesting question.
Hope JB gives us some enlightment about that point.

Most business executives learn to keep notes as they are having a phone conversation.
Especially, busier they are, more they need to do that.

I'm sure lawyers are taught to do that early on.

As for recording a phone conversation that is tricker topic.

In some (many?) states in the U.S., you can not record a phone conversation
unless both parties agree to it (or have knowledge of).

For example, in the state of Maryland both parties have to agree to the recording of a phone conversation.
It came up during the Clinton - Monica scandal.

[TheLegendaryJP]

Also why some calls for support state the phone call will be recorded for " cutomer service " reasons lol

[Acro]

It's important to mention that PedroTheMidget.com is available

[jberryhill]

Regarding the subject of telephone conversations - has there ever been a case which hinged on information divulged in a telephone conversation?

If I have a telephone conversation with you, and I swear an oath to my recollection of the contents of the conversation, that is "evidence" in the same sense as anything else I might testify to.

There is also the issue of whether it is hearsay for the purpose for which it is offered. The speech itself might have a legal significance other than whether what is alleged to have been said is true.

For example, I call you up and you say, "I am wearing a blue shirt, and I am going to kill you."

My testimony that you said "I am going to kill you" is evidence, in an action against you for terroristic threatening or assault. Saying "I am going to kill you" is a threat. As a statement of a threat, it is an element of the crime.

My testimony concerning your statement "I am a wearing a blue shirt" is not evidence that you were wearing a blue shirt.

Don't confuse "evidence" with "proof".

My testimony that you said, "I am going to kill you" is evidence.

Your testimony denying that you said it, is also evidence.

A jury can weigh our credibility, and that is one of the purposes of live testimony.

[draggar]

Originally Posted by Acro

It's important to mention that (hidden from Google).com is available

Great idea, John B should jump on that one - too bad some people might not like it, though.

[jberryhill]

John B should jump on that one - too bad some people might not like it, though.

No... if Pedro The UDRP Responding Midget had his own web page, I'd be out of a job. He doesn't realize that people pay me for his work.