Featured UDRP/DNF Attorneys Cage Match: Engineer.biz/info

[Dave Zan]

Pardon for the late posting since I forgot about it. But better late than never:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0148.html

No limbs were dismembered or heads flung towards the camera during filming..
I mean emailing of the dispute.

Enjoy.

 

[AlienGG]

I'm wondering why they didn't sue for Engineer.com .

 

[VirtualT]

you have to wonder about some of the legal advice these complainants get

 

[CashCowDomains]

you have to wonder about some of the legal advice these complainants get

Exactly my thoughts.

CCD

 

[DNQuest.com]

This proceeding well illustrates why the Policy should be used solely to redress clear abuses. Both sides have presented much evidence and much argument about technical aspects of coding, copying, linking, and other practices regularly used in creating and promoting websites. Both presentations have significant evidentiary gaps. In saying this the Panel intends no criticism or ulterior motive of either party; such gaps are inevitable when each side makes a detailed evidentiary presentation. In a proceeding limited by its charter in principle to a single submission by each party, with no live testimony and no cross-examination, there is simply no way for a panel fully to evaluate such a complex fact pattern. How, for example, is a panel to resolve whether similarity in code results from intentional copying (as Complainant alleges) or innocently from both parties’ use of similar computer language for similar subjects (as Respondent alleges)? To the extent such questions are relevant – in this Panel’s experience, they do not go to the heart of most UDRP cases – they are more suited to litigation in the national courts. The Policy was intended to curb intentional cybersquatting, and the present proceeding is not such a case.

I like this statement and I can see this being refered to in future by respondants showing what the policy should be used for as opposed to trying a court case which seems to "dazzles" panelists in finding in favor of complainants.

 

[AlienGG]

Does WIPO even care about copyright, like copying source codes?
I thought negative but they brought this up.

 

[Sarcle]

The Policy was intended to curb intentional cybersquatting, and the present proceeding is not such a case.

Where's the policy for intentional domain hijacking?

There needs to be laws set up for obvious reverse hijacking attempts and for respondents to be able to claim damages.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

I like this statement

I should gather together my "best lines ever" from a UDRP proceeding:


http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1190.html

This administrative proceeding is not the appropriate forum for raising broader disputes such as the appropriate method of animal handling.


http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/93466.htm

Complainant consistently refers to itself as Western Hay Company, Inc. and that it does not refer to itself as westernhay. He also presented copies of communication showing that he offered to transfer the disputed site to Complainant for reimbursement of his costs and an apology to his wife.

I've been wondering for years about that one.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Where's the policy for intentional domain hijacking?

There needs to be laws set up for obvious reverse hijacking attempts and for respondents to be able to claim damages.

UDRPs is not the best place to cover this. Courts is the only place to recover damages. If you are looking to recover damages in UDRPs, then there will also have to be a policy where sucessful complaints are awarded damages too.

While I agree there needs to be policy for reverse hijacking, just remeber this, big money got the policy's in place now. It will take big money to have hijacking written.

 

[Sarcle]

UDRPs is not the best place to cover this. Courts is the only place to recover damages. If you are looking to recover damages in UDRPs, then there will also have to be a policy where sucessful complaints are awarded damages too.

While I agree there needs to be policy for reverse hijacking, just remeber this, big money got the policy's in place now. It will take big money to have hijacking written.

The Policy was intended to curb intentional cybersquatting

Agreed, all I'm saying is with that statement above.

It seems the system is set up to say you are guilty until proven innocent. Which is the opposite of the way it should work. Not to mention damaging to domainers reputations in general while on the opposite spectrum with big corps it's no skin off their backs to just file, and file without any repercussions.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

If you are looking to recover damages in UDRPs, then there will also have to be a policy where sucessful complaints are awarded damages too.

bingo

 

[Dave Zan]

It seems the system is set up to say you are guilty until proven innocent.

The UDRP isn't designed to assume the respondent is "guilty" to begin with. If
the complaining party doesn't meet all 3 conditions, they don't get a favorable
decision.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

you have to wonder about some of the legal advice these complainants get

"Complainant is TLR, Davis, California, United States of America, represented by Lewis & Hand, LLP, Brooklyn, New York, United States of America."

That is Mr. Brett Lewis. He is on this board and often gives his opinions here.

"The Panel's independent research has been limited to the use of the "wayback machine" at www.archive.org and examination of websites maintained at the two disputed domain names and at Complainant's website."

If this were a real court I would wonder if Wayback machine info would be permitted. The information there is republished without permission. make sure you request your domains get blocked by wayback if you don't want the info posted.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

If this were a real court I would wonder if Wayback machine info would be permitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive#Archived_web_pages_as_evidence

The panelist, btw, made an error when he stated that the complainant had blocked archive.org. Apparently, and this is kind of funny really, the panelist was attempting to view the archive for engineer.com

That said, the archive evidence included the date-stamp URL from archive.org itself, so his statement about the submissions being undated are kind of odd.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Looks like Archive.org just settled a suit out of court for:

"copyright infringement, breach of contract, civil theft, conversion and racketeering."

http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=119669

Archive.org is associated with Alexa and they have links to the Alexa toolbar.

 

[AlienGG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive#Archived_web_pages_as_evidence

The panelist, btw, made an error when he stated that the complainant had blocked archive.org. Apparently, and this is kind of funny really, the panelist was attempting to view the archive for engineer.com

That said, the archive evidence included the date-stamp URL from archive.org itself, so his statement about the submissions being undated are kind of odd.

I sincerely do not think the time stamp is valid.
I have seen many times that the automatic dates shown on most archived pages are way inaccurate.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Sheesh -- this one was very close to home for me with my engineers .net site which is essentially the same type of business. Well done John!

 

[VirtualT]

I wouldn't be giving them any ideas aZooZa, "Lewis and Hand" might be on the prowl for another domain to hijack

 

[Dale Hubbard]

I wouldn't be giving them any ideas aZooZa, "Lewis and Hand" might be on the prowl for another domain to hijack

Indeed! Actually, if there's anyone out there that want's to try their hand at staking a claim to my domain and site, I'd rather know about it sooner than later.

 

[Dave Zan]

I sincerely do not think the time stamp is valid.
I have seen many times that the automatic dates shown on most archived pages are way inaccurate.

That's why they have a disclaimer.