trivialpursuits.net UDRP...a "trivial pursuit".

[Dave Zan]

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...

[I Sold Grandma]

Originally Posted by davezan1

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...2005-0322.html

This guy knows his stuff...

The respondent did not reply
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?

[Dave Zan]

Originally Posted by JOEMART

The respondent did not reply
Somebody in the forum beat you to it anyway
http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=97736
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?

You sure you still wanna hand it over after that UDRP? :-D

BTW, that lnk you posted is for discussion on the wamart UDRP...

[I Sold Grandma]

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

[Dave Zan]

Originally Posted by JOEMART

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

My apologies, you're right! I copied and pasted the wrong UDRP link.

Correcting the link from the thread starter...

[I Sold Grandma]

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?

[seeker]

it looks like the respondent replied without a lawyer.
one this is taken into consideration, he didnt do so bad...

[Acro]

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.

[DomainSalesAgent]

.

[Mr. Deleted]

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”

Wow, what guts, to repley like that!