WIPO - bad flip-flops on the 3-letter issue

[jberryhill]

This just means checking factors that are examined in EVERY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ACTION (e.g. goods and services of complainant and respondent).

Riiiight.... So if I register MGM.tld, offer no goods and services, and say, "I just felt like jerking around MGM to see if I could squeeze some cash out of them by selling them the domain name", then, I'm sure you will agree, it is certainly not TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT.

[Garry Anderson]

John> Denial of a proposition does not imply agreement with some other proposition.

Duh - obviously.

There is a multitude of businesses legally using the initials TNT - none can prevent the other from using these initials.

Some are famous - like Turner Network Television and TNT express delivery service initials.

John> I will not state, in the infinitude of possible circumstance, that anybody is precluded from using "AOL" or "IBM".

I did not think you would.

John> I will definitely state that hardly anybody would be permitted, mostly everybody would be precluded,

So - would you deny Air Outfit Limited from using these initials?

John> and it is extremely difficult to conceive of circumstances where anyone relevant in the dnforum audience would be permitted. That may be "preclusion" as a practical matter here.

So, you would honestly deny me the right to buy domain for legitimate business use (e.g. Accountant Online Learning) or to resell for such (or any use up the wazoo)?

John> But you take denial of one proposition to mean affirmation of a proposition which is not a mutually-exclusive converse proposition. And that is simply not a valid technique of argument.

No - I take your failure to address proposition as the usual avoidance.

When the proposition fits perfectly with all facts and without you giving anything new to counter - I take it that proposition is *most likely* correct (until valid counter argument comes along).

As to valid technique of argument - please do not worry about me - my logic has been found to be perfectly correct in the past (e.g. vCJD in blood).

John> Since you don't seem to be able to grasp the concepts above, let's reduce it to "you stick to stating your own opinions, and I'll stick to stating mine."

Sticks and stones (pots and kettles) ;-)

John> One of my all-time favorite UDRP decisions is armani.com. Am I, you, or anyone else here likely to survive a UDRP proceeding on a name like "armani.com"? No way.

So - you are not allowed to use armani.com to complain about the crap $1,000 suit you bought - a free speech issue?

I am certain you are well aware of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case:

They ruled that domain did not violate the law when owner used the name of Lucas Nursery for a Web site she created to complain about them.

http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinio...4a0071p-06.pdf

and also this

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...43-CV0.wpd.pdf

Businesses are not neccesarily run at the top by the people of same surname.

Please tell us - where no conflict of goods or services exist - what law prevents you using pseudonym or another surname for your business (without having to register trademark)?

Trader - you said, "after reading the entire case I agree with Mr. Berryhill and the Panel who I believe did an outstanding overall job and went into excellent detail giving the respondent as much consideration and leeway as possible. In fact, it seems they were very even-handed and unbiased in the case and went beyond the call of duty to be fair."

But the complainant had not proved their case, described by WIPO such, "In the event that a trademark holder considers that a domain name registration infringes on its trademark, it may initiate a proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)".

http://arbiter.wipo.int/center/faq/domains.html

"even-handed and unbiased" my foot ;-)

The initials had legitimate uses up the wazoo - it was up to complainant to prove "domain name registration infringes on its trademark".

They had merely proven the simularity of name - a simple task - like dissenting panelist David E. Sorkin said, "a common three-letter combination".

Further, he said, "a domain name that was registered for reasons unrelated to the trademark has not been registered in bad faith for purposes of the UDRP"

UN WIPO and all lawyers know that (whether civil or criminal) complainant (or prosecution) has burden of proving case.

[jberryhill]

"a domain name that was registered for reasons unrelated to the trademark has not been registered in bad faith for purposes of the UDRP"

That's absolutely correct, and it is world's apart from inventing lame-ass post-hoc rationalizations.

Am I, you, or anyone else here likely to survive a UDRP proceeding on a name like "armani.com"? No way.

So - you are not allowed to use armani.com to complain about the crap $1,000 suit you bought - a free speech issue?

"Likely", Garry, go look it up. Yes, there are plenty of people who win disputes on the grounds of running a "gripe site". Those are not people who happen to have dozens of other domain names for sale.

Do you own an Armani suit that you don't like? No. So why bring it up? Domain disputes are not conducted in some parallel universe where you've won the Nobel Prize for medicine as a result of your unmasking the conspiracy behind some obscure blood disorder. They are conducted in this world - the one in which you do not run an online learning system for accountants or an air freight company.

However, I will state for the record that just about anyone at dnforum who has suffered through these threads could certainly register and use in good faith, the acronym for "Anderson's Outrageous Lunacy".

I'm sure Hal will have his Absurdtor site up any day now.

[Garry Anderson]

Garry> This just means checking factors that are examined in EVERY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ACTION (e.g. goods and services of complainant and respondent).

John> Riiiight.... So if I register MGM.tld, offer no goods and services, and say, "I just felt like jerking around MGM to see if I could squeeze some cash out of them by selling them the domain name", then, I'm sure you will agree, it is certainly not TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT.

Methinks you are doing your usual avoidance thing again - this time skirting around the edges.

John, in thread "nhn.com" decision - you did not deny that "The owner of nhn.com could have LEGALLY started his own company with it or LEGALLY sold it to another person for this purpose."

You just said, "But he didn't" - this despite the fact he was in the process of selling it (somewhat badly - but not illegally).

If the initials can LEGALLY be used for any other type of business - is it not a REALLY STUPID state of affairs - that domain cannot be offered for sale to a trademark holder (as it may be considered 'Bad faith') - yet you can offer the initial domain to others?

"a domain name that was registered for reasons unrelated to the trademark has not been registered in bad faith for purposes of the UDRP"

John> That's absolutely correct, and it is world's apart from inventing lame-ass post-hoc rationalizations.

If you bought MGM.tld for legitimate business use - or resell for such use - these initials have legit uses up the wazoo - why should you have to defend your position if you are doing nothing illegal or there is no tort?

You thought of MGM.tld first - it is your Intellectual Property.

If I am wrong - just who exactly is the tort against?

Metro Goldwyn Mayer
MGM Brakes
MGM Wine & Spirits
MGM Clonetics Corporation (melanocyte growth medium)
MGM Furniture
MGM Marine and General Mutual Life Assurance Society

Or perhaps tort is against another business without a registered trademark?

As you LEGALLY could start your own company with it or LEGALLY sold it to another person for this purpose - please explain exactly whom the wrong is against and why.

John> Yes, there are plenty of people who win disputes on the grounds of running a "gripe site". Those are not people who happen to have dozens of other domain names for sale.

Wrong.

I have WIPO.org.uk and WoolwichSucks.co.uk ;-)

Why should speculators be precluded from having "gripe site"?

John> Do you own an Armani suit that you don't like? No. So why bring it up?

You started with the Armani thing - I just brought up two arguments (free speech and using a different surname in business).

John> Domain disputes are not conducted in some parallel universe where you've won the Nobel Prize for medicine as a result of your unmasking the conspiracy behind some obscure blood disorder.

I simply used that as demonstrable evidence of logic abilities.

Sorry - I thought you had true intelligence to see that this "obscure blood disorder" could have decimated the UK population with horrific deaths (killing 139 so far - many quite young) - and be passed on to rest of world (that includes America).

My mistake

Please - check out how these poor people have died.

John> They are conducted in this world - the one in which you do not run an online learning system for accountants or an air freight company.

My last job was in Accounts Department - please tell us, exactly why could I not legally go self-employed with business name "Accountancy Online Learning"?

John> However, I will state for the record that just about anyone at dnforum who has suffered through these threads could certainly register and use in good faith, the acronym for "Anderson's Outrageous Lunacy".

How sweet - you do agree that AOL acronym can be used ;-)

John> I'm sure Hal will have his Absurdtor site up any day now.

Ah - we are right back to your refusal to recognise that Realtor is generic term used for real estate agents in other parts of the world.

[jberryhill]

John> Yes, there are plenty of people who win disputes on the grounds of running a "gripe site". Those are not people who happen to have dozens of other domain names for sale.

Wrong.

I have WIPO.org.uk and WoolwichSucks.co.uk ;-)

Why should speculators be precluded from having "gripe site"?

And you have won how many disputes? You are a UDRP defendant wannabe. I was talking about "people who win disputes". Not even WIPO cares about your WIPO domain name.

My last job was in Accounts Department - please tell us, exactly why could I not legally go self-employed with business name "Accountancy Online Learning"?

What, and give up your disability payments? Nobody said you couldn't. But you aren't, and you are not going to.

Absolutely, Anytime Online Traffic School prevailed in a dispute with America Online over the domains <aoltrafficschool.com>, <aoldefensivedriving.com>, and <aoldriverimprovement.com>:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/146930.htm
However, the Panel accepts the fact that Respondent, before any notice of this dispute, has used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of services, namely, traffic school services. Even if such services seem to have been advertised on the Complainant’s website, Complainant cannot reasonably claim that the AOL trademark also covers traffic school services.

The Panel also notes that the Respondent’s business name is Anytime OnLine Traffic School and that it is therefore not far-fetched to use <aoltrafficschool.com> as a domain name for Respondent’s business. The fact that Respondent is using the abovementioned visible disclaimer on its website further indicates a bona fide offering of the traffic school services (See Realmark Cape Harbour L.L.C. v. Lewis, D2000-1435; WIPO Dec. 11, 2000).


Note, however, that they did not win on some hypothetical business which they "could" conduct using the domain names. They won on the fact that they actually were conducting that business. In this world, not in the land of what they hypothetically could do.

John, in thread "nhn.com" decision - you did not deny [...]

There you go again. The scary thing is that you STILL haven't denied being a child molester.

[strongvis]

john . . . you got mail x3

[Garry Anderson]

John> Yes, there are plenty of people who win disputes on the grounds of running a "gripe site". Those are not people who happen to have dozens of other domain names for sale.

Garry> Wrong. I have WIPO.org.uk and WoolwichSucks.co.uk ;-) Why should speculators be precluded from having "gripe site"?

John> And you have won how many disputes? You are a UDRP defendant wannabe. I was talking about "people who win disputes". Not even WIPO cares about your WIPO domain name.

Sorry - my fault - brain getting ahead of my tortoise like typing this time

What I meant was:

"Wrong - I seem to remember a case were respondent had multiple domains and won. And why should speculators be precluded from having "gripe site"? I have WIPO.org.uk and WoolwichSucks.co.uk ;-)"

Where is the proof for your assertion that none of these people had dozens of other domain names for sale?

You know why WIPO.org.uk has not been challenged by UN WIPO:

1. It would highlight their corruption.

2. It is not infringing upon their mark.

You did not answer the question - why should speculators be precluded from having "gripe site"?

Garry> John, in thread "nhn.com" decision - you did not deny [...]

John> There you go again. The scary thing is that you STILL haven't denied being a child molester.

1. My statement was to clarify your position on something you said.

2. Yours is founded in nothing more than somebodies sick imagination.

Indeed, why do you mock my efforts to warn people of health dangers?

I tried to expose the cover-up of higher surgery errors - eventually proven right.

I tried to expose the cover-up of selling contaminated beef to UK population - eventually proven right.

I tried to expose the cover-up of using vCJD infected blood on UK population - eventually proven right.

I am not a health 'expert' - it was objective logic that brought me to those conclusions.

Now - I try to expose the cover-up of the lies corruption in UDRP/ACPA - objective logic has brought me to this conclusion - it also may eventually be proven right ;-)

We both know it is - as does Ari and other lawyers reading this.

You have completely failed to shown how the WIPO complainant proves their case - by ignoring the five factors examined in EVERY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ACTION.

All lawyers know that (whether civil or criminal) complainant (or prosecution) has burden of proving case.

Garry> My last job was in Accounts Department - please tell us, exactly why could I not legally go self-employed with business name "Accountancy Online Learning"?

John> ...Nobody said you couldn't. But you aren't, and you are not going to.

John> Absolutely, Anytime Online Traffic School prevailed in a dispute with America Online over the domains <aoltrafficschool.com>, <aoldefensivedriving.com>, and <aoldriverimprovement.com>

John> Note, however, that they did not win on some hypothetical business which they "could" conduct using the domain names. They won on the fact that they actually were conducting that business. In this world, not in the land of what they hypothetically could do.

The absolute fact remains - the SFR initials could be used for anything - no tort - as are all in which no wrong has been done to complainant - the case is a sham .

I am most certain a clever person like you is not too stupid to see that ;-)

Please explain how any of this is wrong.

[jberryhill]

"Could be used for anything" and "is being used for something" are two different things.

The five factors you have listed for infringement are not part of the UDRP, and I doubt there is anything further to be gained in this discussion.

[Garry Anderson]

John> "Could be used for anything" and "is being used for something" are two different things.

As is "having a gun" and "using it to kill somebody".

Anology - "having a domain" and "using it to do harm".

John> The five factors you have listed for infringement are not part of the UDRP,

But they are "examined in EVERY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ACTION" - so it is very easy to see why they are not.

It takes but a minute to see respondent is not trading in same goods or services.

John> and I doubt there is anything further to be gained in this discussion.

Because?

Perhaps you wish to evade admitting the absolute fact - the SFR initials could be used for anything - no tort - as are all in which no wrong has been done to complainant - the case is a sham.

There we have it ladies and gentlemen - you now know the real truth of the matter - no tort - no case.

UDRP/ACPA is corrupt process - designed by corrupt people.

[jberryhill]

Perhaps you wish to evade admitting the absolute fact

No Garry. The discussion is a waste of time and energy. You want to fit everything into an "infringement" box, as if that were the only possible violation of trademark rights. Someday you'll find yourself in the present time, when things like dilution, and cybersquatting have also been added to the list of various ways a trademark right can be violated. The issue is the evolving definitions and standards of this thing called "cybersquatting" which are not entirely sketched out with the kind of concrete reasoning to which your mind is limited. That kind of legal evolution occurs on a case-by-case basis - a process during which there are "bad" decisions and there are "good" decisions. Over time, interpretive rules are synthesized on the basis of the corpus of decisions.

And, more importantly, if you cannot deny being a child molester - which you still evade - then I certainly don't want to associate with you.

John> The five factors you have listed for infringement are not part of the UDRP,

But they are "examined in EVERY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ACTION"

That's great, Garry. When you want to discuss the UDRP, feel free. Because administrative proceedings under the UDRP are not trademark infringement actions. UDRP panels also do not quiz the parties on the catechism, rock and roll trivia, or make them play rock, paper, scissors. That's mainly a function of UDRP proceedings being decided under the UDRP.

[Garry Anderson]

John Berryhill, the Evasivitor ;-)

I certainly do deny being a child molester.

Again - making it more specific - you obviously did not take it in first time:

My statement was to clarify your position on something you said.

2. Yours is founded in nothing more than YOUR sick imagination.

John> Because administrative proceedings under the UDRP are not trademark infringement actions.

UN WIPO say, "In the event that a trademark holder considers that a domain name registration infringes on its trademark, it may initiate a proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)".

And yet - they do not have to prove it - how nice for them ;-)

Nor do they have to prove any other wrong-doing against them - they must love corrupt UN WIPO.

I certainly do not try fit everything into an "infringement" box - why I used the phrase "using [domain] to do harm".

Very simple question for you - we all know the SFR initials could be used for anything - so where is the tort in SFR.org case?

[marcorandazza]

David E. Sorkin - the dissenting panelist - is honourable in highlighting that this is "common three-letter combination" and concluding "I therefore would find that Complainant has not proved that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and would dismiss the Complaint on that basis."

Sorkin has a vested interest in making gullible/stupid decisions and ignoring principles that favor complainants while inventing principles that favor respondents. As a "respondent's panelist," he knows that if he slacks off on finding for respondents, his nice steady stream of being chosen as a UDRP panelist of choice will turn off. He has made hundreds of thousands of dollars being selected -- he knows where his bread is buttered, and it is buttered by Goldberger and other domainer defense lawyers (nothing against anyone for picking him though -- if you were coaching a football team and could choose a crooked referee, you would be a bit foolish not to).

There are honorable panelists who also trend toward the respondent. G.Gervaise Davis, for one. He does hold a few theories with which I don't agree, but he also doesn't hesitate to sign on to an opinion that trounces a Respondent when appropriate. Fortunately for him, he has a good income as a private attorney, because his principles have gotten his faucet turned down in recent years.

I do appreciate Sorkin's decisions when it comes to "sucks" sites and other free speech issues -- as he relies on free speech principles when he can to support the respondent. But, to call Sorkin "honorable" is laughable. Sorkin is not an honorable panelist -- he is a disgrace. He may find for the respondent the vast majority of the time, but that doesn't make him ethical. It just makes him a fair bet.

This isn't to say I wouldn't have found for the respondent in this case too. I need to look at the complaint and the response to make that determination.

However, there are many cases that hold that registering a domain without regard to the rights of others is bad faith -- even if you say the magic words "I registered it in good faith." The analysis is far more of a complex exercise than Sorkin is willing to engage in ... and why should he engage in complex analysis? That nice short dissent is great advertising for his next $750. A practicing attorney would scoff at $750, but to a full time professor, that is good money (especially when you consider it to be one of many). Sorkin also produces very little in the way of published scholarship, and I presume that his law school accepts his prolific participation in UDRP decisions as adequate for publication credit.

Before you call a guy "honorable," make sure the label fits. With this disgrace, it does not.

[PRED]

this threads 4 years old marc. who you talking to? lol

[marcorandazza]

Oops!!! Just call me "Huge Dork" instead of Marc from now on!

How the heck did it wind up at the top of the list of conversations????

[acronym007]

Oops!!! Just call me "Huge Dork" instead of Marc from now on!

How the heck did it wind up at the top of the list of conversations????

Happens to all of us Marc... LOL. Now I look at the date myself to avoid stardom dork status.