You have 2 years to develop your names or lose them according to NAF

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

The Complainant showed no such thing. The "first use" date in a TM application is merely an allegation, and is not required to be supported by evidence. Given the chronology here, it's pretty clear what the TM application was about.

The fact that it was registered to "Ben Dean" instead of his business name, cited as relevant, is kind of amusing when you find out that ICANN.org is registered to one of their tech people.

That is why the whole shabang was such an odd case to follow. Nothing really clicked.

The Respondent also had the bad luck to get Estella Gold as the single member panelist. She genuinely does not understand this stuff very well at all.
Is it all a matter of luck of the draw?

Originally Posted by marcorandazza

Again, I think this particular Respondent got screwed - as you shouldn't necessarily need a <b>website</b> in order to be <b>using</b> a domain. I own randazza.com, but it just forwards to my blog. But, I have given dozens of relatives (and people who simply share my last name) free "randazza.com" email addresses.

I'm interested in the philosophical issue here: Whether passive holding and speculation is a good thing, and perhaps this panelist might be on to something. That would be the 4(a)(iii) discussion -- and quite pertinent to the entire domaining industry, which thrives on speculation and passive holding.

On one side, you have this resource -- and much like land in the old west, you could have it for cheap or for free if you put it to productive use. However, you couldn't just stake out a piece of land to sell it later on.

On the other side, you have the argument (that John B. made quite persuasively somewhere) that speculation is an economic force that causes resources to find their actual value -- thus removing them from merely being used by the first guy to stake them out. Using the "land squatter" analogy -- someone might have been able to homestead a terribly unproductive farm on a piece of land that would be much better suited to a very productive factory.

That is why it was such a flip of the coin - some of the arguments made no sense nor did the decision.

That philosophical issue? Even that is speculating on speculative speculations.

[broe-foe]

Originally Posted by fab

Maybe we should get a group together to you know what!

If you're not joking, you have a "bottom feeder" mentality. Domainers covet credibility and bemoan how they are considered scun accept at domainer conventions.

Why should we "get a group together?" You don't have the balls to do it on your own?

Originally Posted by broe-foe

If you're not joking, you have a "bottom feeder" mentality. Domainers covet credibility and bemoan how they are considered scun accept at domainer conventions.

Why should we "get a group together?" You don't have the balls to do it on your own?

Type: "scun" should actually read "scum."

[lordbyroniv]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

The Respondent also had the bad luck to get Estella Gold as the single member panelist. She genuinely does not understand this stuff very well at all.

Hmmmm....how many panelists are there at NAB anyways ? It would be nice to get a discussion/ ratimg system on the various members. To keep track of their philosophical jurisprudence on these issues

Kinda like this site ----> http://usptoexaminers.com/

that rates examining attormeys

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by lordbyroniv

Hmmmm....how many panelists are there at NAB anyways ? It would be nice to get a discussion/ ratimg system on the various members. To keep track of their philosophical jurisprudence on these issues

Kinda like this site ----> http://usptoexaminers.com/

that rates examining attormeys

Easy.

The Winner rates the panelist as excellent
The Loser rates the panelist as SUCKS!

[fab]

If you're not joking

ok, lol

[dvdrip]

You are kidding, right?
If you don't pay for 3 member panel at NAF then you are ****ed for sure.

I was appointed the only panelist that had found against me in a previous NAF case. I hardly think that was just a coincidence.
Both cases were on generic and last name domains.
In fact I run a small background check on her.
When she is a single panelist and the complainant has a trademark then no matter what the domain is, respondent will lose. And there are 20+ cases like this. This includes many generic domains and last name cases. She is plain dangerous. I will actually devote a website on her. I am preparing her shrine.

Originally Posted by Doc Com

The Respondent also had the bad luck to get Estella Gold as the single member panelist. She genuinely does not understand this stuff very well at all.
Is it all a matter of luck of the draw?

[marcorandazza]

Most of the *****ing I see on here about UDRP decisions falls into these categories:

1) The domain is "generic." Sadly, I have not yet heard anyone make this statement who understands what the word "generic" means.

2) The panelist was "biased." I agree that there are biased panelists. However, there is zero incentive for a panelist to be consciously biased against the respondent. The only panelists I have ever found who have their minds made up before they open the envelope are David Sorkin and Diane Cabell. Both have figured out how to run a nice little part time gig by making decisions in FAVOR of the domainer bar. However, Cabell will deviate from this when there is porn involved. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. ITC, No. FA96219 (NAF February 20, 2001) (one of the most bullshat decisions I've ever seen).

3) WIPO / NAF is biased. Sorry, I have friends who say this... but I think it is a dumb assertion. I've ranted about this enough on here that you can just search for it.

[dvdrip]

1) Enlighten me on what "you" think a generic domain is. Because you also seem to have a strange view on why the UDRP was introduced in the first place.

2) No one has said that a panelist has something personal against a respondent. Panelists just think that a trademark always wins or they have only corporate clients and all their lives have supported big companies or they think they have more power than court decisions or they have actually done business with the complainant or they want NAF to have a better record in favor of the Complainants or they file trademarks all day and they just can't find it in their heart to deny a case to a trademark holder etc. etc. etc. etc. I can go on for ever...

You keep saying that David Sorkin and Diane Cabell are bad panelists. For each bad decision from them you give me, I can give you 5 from "my" single panelist.

3) The dumb assertion is that NAF is not biased. If you take out the common panelists of WIPO/NAF then NAF's panelists are 90% biased and WIPO's panelists are 10% biased. Also WIPO always tries to allocate a panelist from a third country and succeeds in a very high percentage. NAF does not even try. Actually they do the exact opposite. They almost always allocate a panelist residing in Complainant's country when there is a single panelist case. By doing this, NAF just says that if you don't pay for a 3 member panel you have absolutely no luck in winning. Pay up or lose. I have more to say about this in the future.

Originally Posted by marcorandazza

Most of the *****ing I see on here about UDRP decisions falls into these categories:

1) The domain is "generic." Sadly, I have not yet heard anyone make this statement who understands what the word "generic" means.

2) The panelist was "biased." I agree that there are biased panelists. However, there is zero incentive for a panelist to be consciously biased against the respondent. The only panelists I have ever found who have their minds made up before they open the envelope are David Sorkin and Diane Cabell. Both have figured out how to run a nice little part time gig by making decisions in FAVOR of the domainer bar. However, Cabell will deviate from this when there is porn involved. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. ITC, No. FA96219 (NAF February 20, 2001) (one of the most bullshat decisions I've ever seen).

3) WIPO / NAF is biased. Sorry, I have friends who say this... but I think it is a dumb assertion. I've ranted about this enough on here that you can just search for it.

[stock_post]

Domain prices will come down quite a bit.

[marcorandazza]

1) Enlighten me on what "you" think a generic domain is. Because you also seem to have a strange view on why the UDRP was introduced in the first place.

There is no such thing as a "generic" domain.

What I mean by that is you can't simply say the domain itself is "generic," because you need to ask yourself "generic for what?"

For example, if you own a domain called "apple.TLD" - and you use the domain to send traffic to sponsored links for apple sauce, apple juice, and apple farts, then yes, you have a generic domain used in a generic manner.

But, if you have "apple.TLD" and you use it for sponsored links to Dell and Gateway, you don't have a generic domain there at all -- you have a TM infringement.

So, any time anyone says "my domain name is generic," then they really don't have a complete understanding of the concept of "genericness."

I don't like how the UDRP functions either - not from a complainant nor a respondent's standpoint. But, I've read decisions that you've complained about in the past, and while I can't say that I universally have disagreed with you, most of the time you seem to simply be wearing blinders when reading the decisions. It tends to make you mad when you lose and disagree with the decision, but I don't think I've read one so far that really rubbed me the wrong way. Of course, if you want to throw a link up to one, I'll happily read it and give you my take on it.

[Doc Com]

I appreciate the legal eagles (attorneys) being on the forum and taking the time to give their input (or is it output? ) on things.

From a marketing, advertising, and domaining point of view I also have to agree that many misuse the term generic in the domaining business.

A generic word? Or do you mean dictionary word.

The USPTO has great guidelines on what they can and can not award a TM to when it comes to domain names. They use the example of bank.com.

If people would only take the time to read or study the business they are in to get a good solid foundation then there would be less confusion.

Personally, I do like the phrase Category Killer and some others I have seen regarding the so called "generics".

As for these decisions - I can not recall reading a thread when the majority agreed with the panelist when the domain was taken away from the domain holder.

Wrong is wrong. Period.

But much of this boils down to simple stupidity. There is nothing wrong with me owning Apples.com when I have an apple orchard business and sell 35 varieties of Apples. But there is something wrong when I own Apples.com and point it to Apple computers (or divert traffic away to HP, Dell, etc) and then try to claim it is generic. In this case it is nothing more than intent.

And if people (domainers are people, right?) can not see nor understand the difference then they should not even own a domain name.

Honestly, stop viewing things from a domainers' perspective and go back to being a consumer and looking at things from a consumer's point of view.

[victornumber]

well said doc.

[PRED]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

The fact that it was registered to "Ben Dean" instead of his business name, cited as relevant, is kind of amusing when you find out that ICANN.org is registered to one of their tech people.

to this day www.wipo.com makes me piss myself
what a bunch of retards

this guy is brazen too. check out the links
what a legend lol

[loudbeats.com]

Originally Posted by PRED

to this day www.wipo.com makes me piss myself
what a bunch of retards

this guy is brazen too. check out the links
what a legend lol

lol would love to see that name get stripped

[trader]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

...The fact that it was registered to "Ben Dean" instead of his business name, cited as relevant, is kind of amusing when you find out that ICANN.org is registered to one of their tech people.

ICANN believes in the Do As I Say Not As I Do business model.