Interesting wipo decision

[domaingator]

DG has also dealt with slimy WIPO/NAF judges and emerged with them dangling from its jaws. (Yes, Virginia, they are JUDGES. Many retired judges, but JUDGES nonetheless.)

DG concurs with RacerX, its clear he has dealt with WIPO/NAF before. DG chomps Safesys's irrelevant discourse. Safesys, do you have a WIPO/NAF ruling to your credit? That might provide some measure of credibility.

Donahey's ruling was sound. How could he rule for Bad Faith when no such Bad Faith existed? The Complainant purposely OMITTED the evidence the domains in fact linked to its own site because it knew it would weaken its own case. Donahey had to find this out himself!

 

[domaingator]

Safesys, you hipocrite. You call a judge a "blithering idiot" but object to being called a "moron".

Return to your glass house....

 

[mole]

Chomp. The domaingator is here whahahahhahaa.

I applaud the UDRP in putting it straight to corporate bullies that reverse cyberjacking is no longer an option.

 

[beatz]

"Many retired judges, but JUDGES nonetheless"
Well that means they're NOT judges anymore - legally speaking.

 

The Complainant purposely OMITTED the evidence the domains in fact linked to its own site because it knew it would weaken its own case. Donahey had to find this out himself!

My point is, Donahey should not have gone digging for evidence himself as thats not what the UDRP is about - it should be decided on submitted documents.

At the *point* of complaint, how does he (and you for that matter) know the site was pointing to RLP's sites?

 

[domaingator]

As affirmed by the UDRP, AND, as Donahey correctly states, he does have a right see where the domain is pointed ESPECIALLY when its USE OF BAD FAITH is ALLEGED! Crystal clear, perfectly legal, more than reasonable. Thus, unlike you allege, obviously, Donahey is not a "blithering idiot". That term should be reserved to those who do not understand the process on which they comment.

 

[beatz]

"perfectly legal"
The whole "bad faith" thing is only legal unless generally questioned in a real federal COURT.Soon to come on your favourite Court TV channel..

 

So in other words, anyone who gets a udrp where the complainant hasn't included screen dumps should just point the domain to the complainants site and expect a "get out of jail free" card?

Its not more than reasonable as the UDRP is not a court and has no powers of investigation - yet that's what he did.

 

[mole]

Who's worried about the UDRP?

United States: Fifth Circuit Finds Cybersquatter Liable under Anti-Cybersquatting Act and Texas Anti-Dilution Law
20 May 2002


In an April 3, 2002 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its ruling in E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Spider Webs Ltd. and affirmed summary judgment in favor of Ernest & Julio Gallo Winery on its claims against defendant Texas-based Spider Webs Ltd. that it violated the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) and Texas anti-dilution law. The court upheld the constitutionality of APCA and confirmed that so-called domain name "warehousers" and "traffickers" can be liable without a showing that they ever offered to sell the domain name to the trademark owner.

Spider Webs Ltd began registering domain names in June 1999, registering nearly 2000 domains including some related to companies and products such as "oreocookies.com" and "firestonetires.com." Although it did not contact the E. & J. Gallo Winery to solicit a payment in exchange for turning over the domain name, it was contacted by attorneys for the winery who demanded that Spider Webs either abandon the domain name or transfer it to the winery. Spider Webs refused and instead began posting materials to the domain under the heading "Whiney Winery," including materials disparaging of the winery.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed that Spider Webs had a "bad faith intent to profit" and therefore was liable under the ACPA. The court also found that Spider Webs' use of "ernestandjuliogallo. com" violated Texas' anti-dilution statute, which provides for an injunction if the defendant's actions are likely to injure a business reputation or to dilute a trademark, without a showing that there is competition between the parties or confusion as to the source of goods or services. The decision marks the first time the Fifth Circuit has applied the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and also the first time the court has applied Texas' anti-dilution law to cybersquatting, said Craig Weinlein, attorney for the winery.

Why This Matters: This case demonstrates the potential for plaintiff reliance on state anti-dilution laws in the cybersquatting context, and also illustrates the inadvisability of defendants using the domain at issue to post Web pages disparaging the plaintiff trademark owner. Most importantly, this case illustrates how the laws on cybersquatting have matured and how ransoming domain names is no longer a viable business.

This article originally appeared in ADLAW By Request, a publication of Hall Dickler Kent Goldstein & Wood LLP

 

[domaingator]

Safesys, quit while you are behind. Senseless posts increase your personal number totals but do not increase your credibility at all.

Highly recommend you actually read the UDRP especially since you are contractually bound to it.

 

I imagine I've read the UDRP, the UDRP rules and the final staff report considerably more times than the DG collective.

I've explained my reasoning as carefully as I can - maybe you can do the same?

If a decision is arrived to from evidence obtained independently by panelists then there is no room for objection by either party to that evidence and the evidence might not reflect the reality at the point of the complaint.

Its a very simple concept - and one I'd like to hear a sensible comment from you about.

 

[RacerX]

concur with DG here.

Safesys, in your zeal for the 'last word' you continue to fail to make any sense. The fact of the matter is Judge Donahey was correct in ruling no bad faith because none was present, contrary to your juvenile 'blithering idiot' slur. Case closed. You have this ridiculously goofy anger that Judge Donahey should not have done any above-and-behond-due diligence himself to totally confirm WHY the complainant failed to provide ANY evidence of bad faith themselves, especially when ALL parties know that bad fait is REQIURED!

Wake up safesys. Relax, get a grip, and go back to your glasss house as you have already been told. You are proving to be the {snipped} equivalent of the dnforum.com: Removed from reality, but nevertheless see yourself as some sort of 'supreme domain being'. You are not. Move on to something you know.

Mod note:

from the forum rules;

Don't attack each other; personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. We also take politeness very seriously. You are welcome to challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectively and thoughtfully.

http://www.dnforum.com/rules.php

 

On another note, how's the weather in St.Augustine?
Lots of rain here in Orlando today.

 

You avoided my very simple question re evidence at point of complaint vs evidence gathered post complaint. Its a very simple concept and perhaps you can ask the racerX collective to formulate a sensible answer backed with reason and reference?

I guess you are too interested in trying to attack me personally rather than engage in constructive discussion of the topic.

 

[RacerX]

answer to your very simple question is very simple. NO. Rational: No respondent has ever been given a 'get out of jail free' card. (In the referenced case, the case would have been dismissed REGARDLESS of the independent diligent findings of Judge Donahey). Case closed--AGAIN.

 

Urm, you havn't answered the question!

How can the findings be "diligent" when the panelist was looking at site content *POST* complaint? Does the racerX collective not accept that this is open to abuse by the respondent and also presents the problem of evidence being submitted that neither complainant nor respondent can respond to?

BTW, its not "Judge Donahey" - He is an attorney and an arbitration panelist not a judge.

 

[RacerX]

answer again is NO.

You can't get it out of your head that Judge Donahey's diligence was IRRELEVANT to his wise decision. Get over this and move on.