If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the largest domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 105,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
Register Today on DNForum IT'S FREE!Anyone care for a little brain exercise? Read the respondent's arguments in
this "trivial pursuit" of a UDRP. :-D
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2005-0198.html
This guy knows his stuff...
Last edited by davezan1; 06-10-2005 at 11:46 AM. Reason: wrong UDRP link...thanks JOEMART!
Vidi, Vici, Veni!
The respondent did not replyOriginally Posted by davezan1
Somebody in the forum beat you to it anyway
http://www.dnforum.com/f26/wamart-com-wipo-thread-97736.html
BTW
I have a letter here from a corporate lawyer company threatening me to hand over a dn to the owners of trivial pursiut
Trouble is that they are so stupid they can't open an enom account or start a transfer to another registrar
So how can I hand it over?
JOES.com.au Graduate of the DNF College
You sure you still wanna hand it over after that UDRP? :-DOriginally Posted by JOEMART
BTW, that lnk you posted is for discussion on the wamart UDRP...
Vidi, Vici, Veni!
Thanks Dave
Now I could be wrong here , especially coz I have just got home from friday night in the pub, however the link you posted takes me to:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Modern Limited - Cayman Web Development, Domain Administrator
JOES.com.au Graduate of the DNF College
My apologies, you're right! I copied and pasted the wrong UDRP link.Originally Posted by JOEMART
![]()
Correcting the link from the thread starter...
Vidi, Vici, Veni!
Thanks Dave
Very interesting and very relevant to me indeed seeing i have a C &D from hasbros lawyers
Nearly every member here would support the claim that ..copy/paste
Some people who use the Internet do appear to be interested in writing and reading about unimportant and apparently pointless recreational and other human activities or pursuits which the Panel thinks can fairly be described as “trivial”,
Reminds me of...Umm?
JOES.com.au Graduate of the DNF College
it looks like the respondent replied without a lawyer.
one this is taken into consideration, he didnt do so bad...
Seek... And you shall Find
He was surely lucky - the panelist must have found his prose amusing and entertaining, even after the respondent's attack of the panel's role.
.
Wow, what guts, to repley like that!On September 1, 2003, the Complainant’s lawyers wrote to the Respondent. They said that their client had recently discovered that the Respondent had registered the domain name. They referred to the Complainant’s registered rights in the TRIVIAL PURSUIT marks in the United Kingdom under registration no. 1230233, and in the European Community under no. E00727123. They mentioned the Complainant’s website at “www.trivialpursuit.com”, and alleged that there could be no competing legitimate interests in the name. They alleged that the registration of the disputed domain name would be taken as a reference to the Complainant, which would result in significant damage to the Complainant. They asked the Respondent to refrain from providing any services under the domain name, and that he transfer the domain name to the Complainant. They also asked that the Respondent refrain from attempting to register any domain name in the future which included the name TRIVIAL PURSUIT or any similar expression. The solicitors’ letter sought undertakings on those points, and concluded by advising that the Complainant would have to revert to legal proceedings to protect its position in the event of the Respondent failing to provide the undertakings.
The Respondent replied by an email to the Complainant’s solicitor stating
“I find your aggressive tone unacceptable, choose not to respond to your threats, and do not agree to your conditions.
Ian McMillan”
Bookmarks