I did speak with about the case on the phone and he therefore knew
which case
That is utterly incorrect.
There was a person who spoke with me on the phone some months ago about a different situation entirely, who did not engage me for anything, and whose name I had quite frankly forgotten. I receive many vague inquiries of a general nature and do not record all of the names. The question related to a general issue of procedure, involving no confidential information whatsoever. This one I was able to match up with an email after you had accused me of some kind of propriety.
I found the case under discussion here as a result of a search, which using four relevant words in Google (german lawsuit domain wipo) renders it immediately apparent.
People read this forum to find information that might be relevant to their own situation. You posted a note to the effect that not signing the declaration in a UDRP Response resulted in some tacit recognition by WIPO that it is not part of the UDRP incorporated into domain contracts.
Not only is that wrong information, it was stated in the decision to be wrong information. You are not entitled to mislead people into doing things that, with another panelist, may result in an otherwise valid defense being thrown out. You are not entitled to harm others who might be gulled into believing you. You are not entitled to mis-educate the users of this forum.
Having my memory refreshed, you seriously believe that a fifteen minute telephone conversation about something unrelated to this case back in January renders me thenceforth unable to quote from a published case? Oh, please.
Since you recall it better than I do, just how much of my time
did you consume for free, anyway?
WIPO decisions are not based on evidence that has been heard from both sides and in many cases is not true (b) that it is quoted as being "fact" when it is in fact
"assumption"
It is an absolute fact that:
1. You didn't sign the declaration required by the UDRP and UDRP Rules.
2. You asserted here that the WIPO Supplemental Rule on that point was not authorized under the UDRP.
3. You asserted here that WIPO admitted to your conclusion on that point.
No. The Panelist charitably considered your response, and the decision pretty much says that if you want to challenge WIPO in court on it, then you can be their guest.
But your assertion that I have violated a confidence is nonsense. If you believe otherwise, direct your complaint to
http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/.
If you had consulted me on this specific case, my first piece of advice would be that you NOT post a detailed blow-by-blow on a forum - which is what I tell all of my clients, and I avoid cases in which clients appear determined to do that sort of thing.
But, no, a thoroughly unremarkable and brief telephone call about something else several months ago does not prevent me from referring to a published document at WIPO, particularly when you are engaging in posting potentially harmful misinformation
to others here at DNForum.
If you had consulted me on this specific case, my first piece of advice would be that you NOT post a detailed blow-by-blow on a forum
...but you did not consult me on this case. Instead, you posted a series of threads on the forum about your various derring-do, during the course of which I posted, again publically on the forum where you had asked, that the panel is not going to care much about a TM application filed after contact with the complainant.
Remarkably, I was 100% correct in my public answer to your public question.
You're welcome.
