As an avid thoroghbred handicapper, I've been thinking it would be great to have a tote board for giving parimutuel odds based on fantasy wagers on pending UDRP's.
Assuming an active respondent, and knowing absolutely nothing about the facts of these cases (none of which are mine), my trackside tip sheet reads as follows:
- pamelaanderson.com (Alberta Hotrods defending)
- pamelalee.com (Alberta Hotrods defending)
...1:10 for the Complainant. Alberta Hotrods has had a number of good wins, but their early winning trend in celebrity name cases has taken a turn for the worse.
- 12.org (trademark on a number??)
1:30 for Respondent. I could see the Respondent lose this if they default, but, come on, I don't see clock makers getting a license for noon and midnight.
- smurfs.com (email service defending)
1:99 for Complainant. Easy win for Blue Man Group Jr., and even kids under age ten know what Smurfs are (if they aren't sucked into tiny Japanese fighting monsters of various stripes).
- puertorico.com (another waste of taxpayers' money)
1:99 for Respondent. Ari is defending the same party who won newzealand.com.
- madrid.com (another barcelona.com?)
1:90 for Respondent. Barcelona.com wasn't well-handled either as a UDRP case or as a court case, and comes up for appeal arguments next month in the fourth circuit. If Barcelona.com was a three-member panel case, it would have gone the other way. Madrid.com is another Ari Goldberger case, and he should be able to win this handily. Only way for Complainant to smell the roses is if the panel carves a universal exception for cities in Spain. However, the domains in Spain are mainly very plain. Ari should point out that the last word in Barcelona.com hasn't been heard yet.
1:15 for Complainant. Yeah, they are bears, but nobody calls them that. I would expect to see this one show up as "terminated" without a decision.
1:99 for Complainant. Marlboro is among the most famous and valuable trademarks on the planet. Respondent's best shot is to argue that the tobacco settlement agreement forbids use of the mark for online advertising of cigarettes, but I doubt they think of that argument.
- bankrates.com (seems generic to me!)
1:20 for Respondent. Difficult not to anticipate a strong "generic" defense.
Now that I think about it, I suppose I could make book on dnbuck wagers on pending UDRP cases, and take a 10% house cut. If anyone's interested, then I'll post a selected number of pending cases and put up a tote board somewhere.