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!
One of the primary components of winning a UDRP is being able to prove that a domain was registered AND currently being used in bad faith. And yet I am pretty sure there were some cases where the domain was registered in good faith, but currently being used in very bad faith, and the courts decided to find for the complainant. I think Nissan.com was one of these situations, but I might be getting confused.
Anyway here is my question...do complainants still have to prove that a domain was registered AND used in bad faith? Or has past precedent done away with this requirement?
It seems an obsolete and outdated requirement, if I had registered Amazon.net in 1992 in order to provide info on the amazon jungle, and then switched to selling books on my domain in 2000, I don't think panelists should tolerate that sort of buffoonery.
Ok, I'm confused .. you dont think UDRP should put up wiht your buffoonery of changing the theme of your site from jungles to selling books !
lol
Help me understand this dragon..
Maybe it was The Jungle Book?Originally Posted by bidawinner
I don't really understand your question, I literally mean exactly what you said, that UDRP panelists shouldn't tolerate someone who registered a domain in good faith (such as to provide info on the amazon jungle) and then switched to bad faith ( selling books using the word Amazon).
lol.. OK lol
I didnt see the word "IF" :emba:
as in IF you had registered amazon.net for goodfaith then after a couple years change it over or sell books..
I thought you said you "DID"
as in register amazon.net etc...
Now if you'll excuse me ..I'm going to hit the bartender up for last call
It's clear once you read it, it's only on skimming that this sounds wrong.
If he switches to books and is now infringing, it shouldn't be tolerated.
I think everyone is in agreement. I don't remember any decisions in which the infringement was tolerated simply because it was recent and not when it was registered, and it doesn't sound like their typical response.
Dan Norder
Werewolves.com, Inklings.com, OtherWoman.com and more
Dan, if that is true, then it seems logical that ICANN should change the UDRP criteria to remove the 'registered in bad faith' clause and keep the 'used in bad faith' one. There shouldnt be a mismatch between the written regulations and the way they are enforced.
Posting Permissions
View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Forum Threads
View Friends
View Blog Entries
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks