Lawfirm Fails To Get Domain Name Via UDRP

[Dave Zan]

Talk about irony:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1344.html

 

[Raider]

From reading this...It was the right decision to rule in favor of the respondent.

do you not agree?

 

[jasdon11]

From reading this...It was the right decision to rule in favor of the respondent.

do you not agree?

Absolutely.

What kind of a half-arsed claim was that - bad faith because the domain was unused for a period of time....

Charles Russell = piss-poor lawyers on the face of that!

 

[katherine]

What a bunch of losers. Serves them right.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Of the 380 lawyers they employ, aren't any of them IP attorneys?

It is a good decision and it was even unresponded. The panelist did a great job in being fair and looking at all the facts. I just wonder if the panelist researched the domain history and the artist, or if the complainant offered the information about the artist? I would find this much funnnier if the complainant did.

 

[Bob]

Too funny!

 

[Brett Lewis]

Of the 380 lawyers they employ, aren't any of them IP attorneys?

Fair question. Charles Russell, LLP lists twenty IP lawyers on its Web site. Hmmmmmm.... Why couldn't twenty IP attorneys figure out that Charles Russell is also a person's name? I was intrigued.

In 1760, Charles "Ignacious Loyola" Russell founded the law firm that now bears his name. Russell was fiercely protective of his name, and was know for challenging any man named "Charles" or Russell to a duel. Being an expert marksman, it was not long before London was emptied of persons bearing his name. Russell's son, also named Charles Russell, continued the inquisition, although resorted to the court system, debtor's prisons and indentured servitude to rid the countryside of persons named Charles or infringing on the Russell family name.

The descendants of the Russell clan have fought a continuing battle to protect the Russell name into the Internet age. Although poisonings and forced labor are no longer in vogue, the minions of Charles Russell brought its centuries old battle to the shores (actually deserts) of the former Colonies where Dennis Yellowhorse -- how dare he!!-- audaciously registered the domain name CharlesRussell.com. After centuries of careful protection of their family name, a single WIPO panelist has, with the stroke of a pen, carelessly cast aside hundreds of years of careful efforts at cultivating a monopoly over the Russell name.

Right decision? I think not!!! Let's face it. No one was poisoned here or forced to work against their will. These WIPO panelists are intoxicated with power.

 

[Devil Dog]

In November 2006, the Complainant, through an intermediary (a corporate investigation company), sought anonymously to purchase the disputed domain name. After several iterations with the agent, the Respondent demanded US$150,000 for the transfer of the disputed domain name.

I think that killed it for them.

 

[DOTCA]

After several iterations with the agent, the Respondent demanded US$150,000 for the transfer of the disputed domain name.

I think that killed it for them.

Why would you say that.. they never lost the domain here.. so...

 

[Dave Zan]

Hmm, as of this post, the domain name's Go Daddy parking page is showing
sponsored link #2 for...a barrister firm. Too bad Wayback doesn't say when
it started showing the PPC thing. (anyone know something similar?)

However, this point appears to be essentially what worked against them:

The Complainant’s own acknowledgment, the domain name was seemingly registered with the painter Charles Russell in mind and not the Complainant.

If they didn't say that, who knows?

 

[clasione]

This is releaving to say the least. Glad it went in favor of the respondant.

 

[cyberlaw]

Seemed to be more of an issue of pride as opposed to an issue of legal right.