Supreme Court Rules on WIPO Procedure Costs

[HOWARD]

John
Excellent analyses. I'm continually flabbergasted at the time that you put into these wonderful expositions. Congratulations on a job well-done

 

[Dave Zan]

I've never understood why a wealthy complainant would give up after losing a UDRP dispute.

If a big-money complainant has a weak trademark claim on a domain name held by an individual registrant, isn't the best course of action for the complainant to simply sue the registrant?

If the complainant has little chance of winning in court, wouldn't the possibility of costly litigation cause many registrants to give up without fighting?

I wish you didn't ask that. :-D

 

[dtobias]

Peta.com - a parody site, "People Eating Tasty Animals", was taken to court by PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - The outcome was that the domain registrant not only lost the domain, but also had to pay damages to PETA.

That case (one of the first domain disputes ever) was actually about peta.org, appropriately given that both PETA and the parody site were noncommercial.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

Ah, thank you Dan.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Garry> We can all see that this first principle of law is not in corrupt UN UDRP.

John> The UDRP is a non-binding dispute resolution system which is built into a contract. If you want to, you can draw up a contract with someone which says, "All disputes under this contract shall be decided by a toss of the coin" or any other dispute resolution mechanism you want.

To describe it thus, is misleading John.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act is based on this corrupt UN UDRP.

Two very easy questions:

1) Any lawyer that says they do not understand one of the first principles of law (i.e. that the plaintiff must prove the wrong done to them by defendent) - then that lawyer is either a liar - or totally incompetent - true or false?

2) When the name is/can be legally used by others - where is the legal requirement for plaintiff to prove wrong done to them by defendent?

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

1) Any lawyer that says they do not understand one of the first principles of law (i.e. that the plaintiff must prove the wrong done to them by defendent) - then that lawyer is either a liar - or totally incompetent - true or false?

2) When the name is/can be legally used by others - where is the legal requirement for plaintiff to prove wrong done to them by defendent?

1) In an original legal action, the Complainant must at least allege each element of a cause of action in order to proceed with a case. In an appeal, the appellant must argue that some ruling of the court in the original action was in error, or that the principle upon which the ruling was based must be changed. This thread is about an appellate decision on a damage question arising from a trademark action. The appeals court does not need to regurgitate elements of the underlying trademark action which are not in dispute on appeal.

2) This is not a comprehensible question. The UDRP is a contract dispute resolution provision. If I have a contract with an arbitration clause, and the contract is that I pay you $50 in advance to paint my house, and you don't paint my house, then I go to the arbitrator and say "Garry didn't paint my house". As there is no law that requires Garry to paint my house, I don't need to prove a "legal harm", I simply need to show that you didn't paint my house.

How about a question for you, Garry. Do domain name registrants win more frequently in court or under the UDRP?

And today's howler:

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act is based on this corrupt UN UDRP.

Really Garry? Do tell us (1) the date that the ACPA was proposed in the US congress and (2) the date that the ICANN board commissioned a drafting committee for the UDRP.

 

[seeker]

these have got to be one of the most entertaining threads on the forum.

jberryhill vs Garry Andreson

Of course, I am not complaining, you guys give us free advice, which is more than we can ask for.
But...
Is there any possibility you both can agree on a certain thing?

Garry, I am all for the under dog type thingy, but many times your arguments seem to be for the sake of the argument (not always).
John, as I have previously said, when I need a lawyer, you are the one I will call.

(I have emailed you)
I guess asking for world peace is too much. Apparently.
How about a truce here?
I am sure you are both extremely well knowledgeable people, and we all *need* your input.


Just stop arguing, or I will become the referee under UN resolution 1044, section Bii, sub section 4.

 

[Dave Zan]

these have got to be one of the most entertaining threads on the forum.

And informative!

Of course, I am not complaining, you guys give us free advice, which is more than we can ask for.
But...
Is there any possibility you both can agree on a certain thing?

You sure you want them to? :-D

I guess asking for world peace is too much. Apparently.
How about a truce here?

And let this thread and others lose their entertainment? :'(

Mind you, John's not doing this just for the entertainment, but something he
feels truly strong about.

And apparently Garry does, too.