Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xbase234 |
This panel seemingly decided what they wanted the outcome to be, and then did a lot of work sifting through the cited cases to find justification for their decision. Undoubtedly they were influenced by the previous activities of the respondent. I think a "fresh" respondent who had never been before a UDRP panel before might have had a better result.
Ignoring the specific merits of this case, the UDRP process does not lend itself well to the concept of precedents. Each panel makes a decision, good or bad, based on the circumstances of the dispute before them, and then their decision is forever used to argue one way or the other in future cases. A lot of "bad" UDRP "law" from past disputes haunts us.
I understand there was a need for an expedient process to deal with so-called cybersquatting in the past when many companies were just beginning to grasp the idea that the Internet was important and a domain name was valuable. But with each passing day I think the value of the UDRP system diminishes. Is there any established company that still has not awakened and had the chance to obtain the domain name(s) they need for their business? Any new disputes that arise must surely be at least partly the fault of the complainant. Either their failure to renew a domain name they had, or failure to defensively register any names they feel are similar enough to marks they own to litigate. I think normal legal channels should be adequate to take care of the problem at this point.