Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdrip  Are you confusing UDRP with WIPO?
NAF accepts additional submissions.
And one can file an additional submission at WIPO anyway. With or without RDNH. It's up to the panelist to accept it or not.
|
No, I'm not.
NAF might "accept" supplemental filings for a $400 fee, but under the UDRP, the panel has no obligation to accept them. In fact, some panelists make sure to remind the reader of that in any decision where supp filings were submitted. Just because the complainant paid $400, the panel is not obliged to consider it.
Similarly, other providers may not charge for supplemental filings, but whether or not to actually review them is within the discretion of the panel.
The panel is, however, presented with a more compelling argument for consideration, and more frequently *does* consider supp filings when there is an RDNH accusation.
Making an RDNH claim is nothing more than stupid pecker-waving that doesn't actually serve the Respondent's needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by draggar Calling RDNH can get the complainant flagged as a reverse hijacker. We all know that while there are people who buy domains with malicious intentions (which is why WIPO / UDRP was created) there are plenty of people who try to abuse those policies for their own benefit. Its a fact of life - out there there is someone trying to abuse any policy for their own benefit. |
Precisely. And that plus $4 will get you a mocha latte.
You may as well call the complainant a "douchebag." It is meaningless. If RDNH had some teeth, any teeth at all, it would be worthwhile. However, any time I see a Respondent bothering with an RDNH claim, it is either an uneducated self-represented respondent who "learned" domain name law by reading this (or worse) boards, or a domain lawyer who is more interested in his own ability to market himself by waving the "look, I won an RDNH claim" flag around than he/she is concerned with actually serving the client.
It is dumb. It may feel good, but until the UDRP is amended to provide some benefit to winning an RDNH, it is plain stupid, and potentially malpractice, to even seek a finding of RDNH. If RDNH exists, the panel can find it without being asked -- and occasionally they do.