Muscovich says

“The National Arbitration Forum has provided years of service in trademark and domain name disputes. Greater transparency is required in order to explain the concentration of cases amongst certain panelists. ICANN should revisit the Rules and require that panel appointment is always random. Otherwise, there will be an apprehension of an unfair process amongst some observers and stakeholders who believe that the selection of the panellist is of paramount importance and has a substantial likelihood of affecting the outcome of cases. To increase discussion of these and other domain dispute issues, we have created a free sign-up to receive daily NAF Case Update so that you can receive daily notices of new NAF decisions.”

They have compiled statistics which we hope will provide the domain name dispute community with an idea of the approximate participation levels of all NAF Panelists.

Link: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-report-domain-name-dispute-stats-reveal-concern-over-panelist-appointment-88825337.html

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). 

Update – At first glance, changes include an increase in the supplemental filing fee from $250 to $400 (with a new proof of service requirement), a new $100 re-initiation fee, and increased filing fees. For 1-2 domain names, the new filing fee is $1300 (from $1150).

No response was filed by Dadha, and Panelist John J. Upchurch ordered the domain names transferred to the five co-complainants. The decision may be the first UDRP action involving five co-complainants.

Glaxo Group Limited, SmithKline Beecham PLC, SmithKline Beecham Corp., BW USA, Inc. & SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc. v. Pradeep Dadha, NAF Case FA514979 (Aug. 24, 2005).