UDRP - Gallup Poll vs New Mexico

[DaddyHalbucks]

gph wrote:

In these types of situation - if the Complainant loses the case, do they have to pay the Respondent's legal costs?
+++++++++++++

No. The UDRP was intended to be a quick, low cost way to bring order to the net. It was intended to minimally burdensome for all parties.

While respondents are certainly allowed counsel, it is not required nor is there a provision for the sort of compensation to which you refer.

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

[DaddyHalbucks]

hi0silver wrote:

In my case, I own many city domains, especially .info, so a decision in my favor should be a good investment in bolstering my portfolio.
+++++++++++++++++

Not really.

However, a LOSS could be disasterous to your reputation as it would likely be cited in future UDRPs against you.

Heck, I prevailed in a UDRP, the BHF.org matter, and despite my win, people have still try to use that case that to prove I am a cybersquatter.

[hiOsilver]

hi0silver wrote:

In my case, I own many city domains, especially .info, so a decision in my favor should be a good investment in bolstering my portfolio.
+++++++++++++++++

Not really.

However, a LOSS could be disasterous to your reputation as it would likely be cited in future UDRPs against you.

Heck, I prevailed in a UDRP, the BHF.org matter, and despite my win, people have still try to use that case that to prove I am a cybersquatter.

Hal,

There is a lot of misunderstanding of what cybersquatting is. Many uninformed people think that buying multiple domains is cybersquatting, or that selling domains for profit is cybersquatting. If you are not able to use your win and help convince an attorney that you know what you are doing, then that is too bad. I have dealt with attorneys on many domains. Sometimes they are reasonable and knowledgable. Other times they are not.

[namedropper]

If you are not able to use your win and help convince an attorney that you know what you are doing, then that is too bad.

Actually, I believe Hal was referring to people on domain name forums (including this one) accusing him of cybersquatting, and not lawyers. From what I've seen, the people calling him a cybersquatter are ones who are doing it themselves and like to believe everyone else does all the same immoral and illegal things they do so argue to absurd lengths that everyone else is just as bad.

I've run into the same situation here, where my registering savanna.com for a godchild named Savanna and being willing to sell it to establish a trust fund for her can be twisted around as "cybersquatting" by people who knowingly infringe upon trademarks of large multinational corporations. It's just sour grapes from people who refuse to face up to their mistakes.

You should be in a good position to win on this. That wouldn't stop certain people fom preferring to think of you as a cybersquatter either. There's nothing to do but ignore those types.

[jberryhill]

"more than I would have sold the domain for"

"They want me to hand over Sylvania.info"

Gee, is there anything else you would like to publish here while the complainant in your case is still thinking about filing a supplement to their complaint?

[ShaunP]

"more than I would have sold the domain for"

"They want me to hand over Sylvania.info"

Gee, is there anything else you would like to publish here while the complainant in your case is still thinking about filing a supplement to their complaint?

Ssssshhhhh ...don't interupt the boards' "lets show how smart we are" brigade doing their thing .. it's way to fun ...

Shaun