View Single Post
Old 05-21-2009, 07:53 PM   #12 (permalink)
draggar
The Evil Mod
 
draggar's Avatar
 
Name: Ed
Last Online: Today 01:02 PM
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,369
DNF$: 188
Location: South Florida
Country:

Send a message via ICQ to draggar Send a message via AIM to draggar

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcorandazza View Post
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.
The process seems a bit hypocritical then. If someone loses several WIPO cases then they are labeled as a cybersquatter and it seems that the panelists my look at them in a negative way (thus throwing out the whole "impartial" belief out the window) yet if someone has several RDNH rulings against them then no one cares.
draggar is online now   Reply With Quote