by Fairness Advocate
Are there standards which UDRP Panelists are held to? Is there protection and balance built in to the system that protects both complainant and respondant?
Sure, if a person loses their domain name, no matter the circumstances, it might be expected to hear a cry of foul or vent about it not being fair or being weighted against the respondant.
One might want to initially dismiss these claims, but unfortunately the patern is that more and more frequently there are cases that the panelist appears to be on complainant autopilot.
Case in point. In Andrew Alleman’s article today on Domain Name Wire entitled UDRP Arbitration: A Case of Laziness? he describes circumstances of some questionable tactics both by the claimant’s selective omissions of activity and a perception of the panelist’s bias that is hard to argue with.
Another panelist has been showing a pattern of finding for the complainant under questionable circumstances, and even in the presence of irrefutable dissent and presence of pattern reverse hijacking on 3 party panels.
Filing UDRP is largely done by intellectual property interest. There are clear cases and not so clear cases.
Is it the absence of financial consideration that makes panelists operate in a mindset where volume makes up for the fees involved? Rushing does not improve quality or balance, at least not for the average domain name owner who is challenged with the loss of their domain name while also being hassled with the legal fees and other costs of defense.
Although statistically the percentage of filings versus the number of domains registered has been a declining number, a growing number of UDRP are filed where the complainant is awarded the domain name. Read this to mean that I am implying the system is broken and biased towards trademark and big business interests.
Built in to the IRT (authored largely by the intellectual property interests that are using the UDRP system to retrieve domain names from registrants) are provisions for an accellerated process for ‘clear cases’, where the filing costs are lower (as little as $2/name).
There is merit to getting illegal activity taken offline as quickly as possible, such as phishing. Unless there is a balanced component to this new process, panelists who might be statistically inclined to find for the complainant would with greater frequency be sought for these accellerated proceedings.
If unchecked, any bias, when mixed with the low cost per name would drive volume decisions that could have further skew of balance.
by Fairness Advocate
We’re back and better than before. We’ll have commentary from noted experts in the field of domain name law as well as panelists (and I am sure comments from the public) as we re-launch UDRPLaw.net.
-The Anonymous Coward Admin
(hiding behind privacy whois)
by Historical Post
I have been operating a UDRP-related website since January 2001, first through UDRPlaw.net, and for past year, through this blog.
I have enjoyed running both sites, providing a helpful resource on the Internet for domain name disputes, ICANN issues and information on Internet governance. When I first planned UDRPlaw.net back in 2000, there were no other resources available on the Internet providing the same service. Since then, many resources have become available, in a number of languages, from interested Internet users worldwide. I recommend Bret Fausett’sICANN blog, Marty Schwimmer’s Trademark Blog, Cedric Manara’sNom de Domaine and Circle ID.
Fortunately, the experience gained from running the sites, handling UDRP cases and writing about ICANN has opened some new doors and provided me with a great opportunity. I am looking forward to the fresh start.
This is my last post on this blog. I’ll be surfacing again in the next couple of weeks in another location. I am not leaving the Internet, so I will be seeing some of you soon. Thanks for reading.
by Historical Post
According to the Board agenda for February 21, Sao Paulo, Brazil has been designated as the location for the 2006 ICANN Annual Meeting. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for the first week of December. Brazil served as host of the March 2003 ICANN meeting.
When Latin America comes up on the rotating schedule again in 2008, Mexico would make a great location for an ICANN meeting.
The 2007 schedule includes meetings in Europe, North America and Asia. My wish list: Barcelona in March, New York in June, and Korea in October.
by Historical Post
In today’s blog post, Bret Fausett notes that a location for the October 2006 ICANN meeting has not yet been published. He also makes a plug for an ICANN meeting in Mexico. This is a great idea. Way back on April 8, 2005, I made a similar recommendation on this blog for Merida, Mexico. Even if the meeting is held in a different location in October, Mexico would be a good candidate for a future meeting.
by Historical Post
At the ICANN Annual Meeting in Vancouver, the Government Advisory Committee launched a Public Forum section on the GAC website. To date, there have been only been four comments posted to the Public Forum, all by ALAC members, none by GAC representatives themselves. The last comment was posted on December 17, 2005.
According to the introductory note from GAC Chair Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi, “I encourage the Internet community and the general public, world-wide to make use of their GAC representatives and to work with us, as part of the ICANN process, to facilitate the development of a comprehensive international public-private partnership in this important area of management of the global Internet infrastructure.”
The Wellington meeting is fast approaching. It would be beneficial for all interested parties if GAC representatives and members of the Internet community were making greater use of the GAC Public Forum.
by Historical Post
Warner Brothers Entertainment, which owns the rights to
The Dukes of Hazzard and related characters, including DAISY DUKE, failed in its UDRP case against the registrant of the domain name DaisyDukes.com.
The Panelist determined that although WB had common law rights in the DAISY DUKE mark and the registrant lacked rights and legitimate interests in the DaisyDukes.com domain name, WB failed to demonstrate that the registrant had registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
“Respondent submits that his use of the term “daisy dukes” is not in bad faith because the term has become accepted vernacular for women’s cut-off shorts and this term has been used in that connotation to attract people to this pornographic web site. The best evidence submitted by Respondent in support of that position is his submission in evidence of the lyrics of a 1992 song “Dazzey Duks” by rap artist Duice. The song repeatedly uses this term to refer to cut-off shorts and makes no reference to the Dukes of Hazzard television series. Complainant does not address this evidence in its Additional Submission and presents no counter-arguments regarding its significance. The Panel finds that this piece of unrefuted evidence slightly tips the balance in favor of Respondent.”
The Panelist overlooked the fact that the meaning of of the term “daisy dukes” is taken directly from the clothing (or lack thereof) worn by and popularized by the DAISY DUKE character in the television series.
This case is probably headed to federal court.
Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc. v. R Schwartz d/b/a Virtual Dates Inc., NAF Case FA608636 (Jan. 26, 2006).
by Historical Post
CircleID has posted a link to a new WIPO report on UDRP cases the domain name dispute resolution provider handled in 2005. A copy of the report is available here.
“‘Notwithstanding the unique effectiveness of the UDRP as a global remedy against cybersquatting, the fact that WIPO’s caseload in 2005 was the highest in four years and that many of these cases concern recently registered domain names, underlines the need for continued vigilance by intellectual property owners,’ said Mr. Francis Gurry, Deputy Director General of WIPO who oversees the work of the Center. He further noted that, while WIPO’s experience shows that UDRP disputes are heavily concentrated in the .com domain, attention must also be paid to the establishment of robust preventive mechanisms against abusive registration in new gTLDs. ‘If domain names are randomly attributed in new domains, intellectual property owners will be forced to compete with cybersquatters for their own trademarks – unless additional preventive safeguards are introduced,’ he added.”
by Historical Post
The International Olympic Committee and TOROC, the Organizing Committee for the Turin 2006 Olympic Winter Games have won a UDRP decision against the registrant of the domain name Turin2006.com. The registrant had altered the content of the website available at the domain name after the filing of the UDRP complaint.
The Turin Olympic Games begin February 10.
by Historical Post
