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.
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.
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.
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.
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).