lawfinder.com Decision, in favor of Ultimate Search

[Ovicide]

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0163.html

This was in today's "Domain Decisions" mailing from WIPO.


"adhoc spyware" ???
I've seen some stupid arguments in these decisions, but this is the most unusual.

 

[shepherd2]

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0163.html

Good going John
Cheers
Sal.

 

[URLCollection]

Another Great Job John!!! Congrad. to both you and Ult Search!!!! That was a tough one and you did it - Only the best - Steve

 

[shepherd2]

Tough? it actually a pretty simple one but with UDRP, everything is "tough". The way they make their decisions is based on nothing logical.. so yes, they all "tough".

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

"I've seen some stupid arguments in these decisions, but this is the most unusual."

That was indeed very strange. The complainant had received a complaint via a web form on their own site about being unable to remove "adhoc spyware" from his machine. The complaint didn't mention anything about where he got it.

Now, check this out:

http://ns.athoc.com/wis/activate/activate_ie.asp?pid=11279

At findlaw.com, you can download a "FindLaw toolbar" published by "At Hoc Software". The entire complaint was built around the accusation that the respondent was responsible for distributing "adhoc spyware". Even when this was all pointed out to the Complainant, they did not withdraw the allegations.

If they had done that in a court, they would have been ripe for sanctions.

 

[Ovicide]

Now, check this out:

http://ns.athoc.com/wis/activate/activate_ie.asp?pid=11279

That's very strange. I wonder whether they just threw in that allegation hoping to pull a fast one, or... are they really that stupid.

There's something else I don't understand. The complainant's registered mark contains a graphic, which the respondent didn't use. Yet the panelist found:

Therefore, according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

I assume that the graphic is part of the mark because the text alone isn't registerable. If so, how can there be confusing similarity?

 

[dax]

Once again, John showed the art of the domain law. Nice job.
Although, if i may say - it seems very easy to defend such a UDRP case (due to generic nature of the domain name) but the domain/ppc business UltSearch does, not always is equally "respected" by the arbiters, so every case is slightly different (no matter how similar it may look). Congrats.

 

[mole]

Congrats on a nice win, John! Although I though you should have won the 'reverse domain hijacking" counter-case also. These disgusting reverse cyber-pirates deserve what they get.

 

[clemzonguy]

How much do your services run for such URDP defenses and did you physically have to go to a court or was all this done through conference calls or what? Need to know who I can turn to in times of crisis :disappoin

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

UDRP disputes are all done entirely on paper. No one has to go anywhere. The cost depends on the complexity of the particular dispute and the issues involved, since I charge by the hour. Like most attorneys who have done several of these [1], I can generally obtain a savings in time, since I don't have to spend nearly as much time researching previous cases or dealing with certain types of fact patterns. I always provide an estimate after reviewing the individual complaint.



[1] e.g. Ari Goldberger, Howard Neu, Zak Muscovitch, Charles Carreon, Steve Sturgeon, David Dingeman, and please forgive me if I left someone out.