Adam,
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, Adam Beecher wrote:
> Although I have problems with some of the WIPO decisions, I gotta say I have
> no problem with this one whatsoever. The respondant was quite obviously a
> cybersquatter
Real cybersquatters are not victims, I agree. I do not agree
bodacious-tatas.com qualifies as a cybersquatter. The owner probably never
even heard of the House of Tata before the WIPO case.
- s/he registered the domain in bad faith, used META tags in
> the webpages to demonstrate that, and never even responded to the complaint.
What reason have you to assume bad faith? Unless porn is defined as bad
faith.
As for the meta tag "tata": you will find hundreds of porn sites when
searching for tata. Many use tata as meta tag, even when it is not in
the domain name. Well obviously, given the *meaning* of tata. It is a
shame that it is not acknowledged in the WIPO decision that tata is first
a word, be it a dirty one, and only secondly a trademark. For heavens
sake, tata is four letters. When will we see acompany from Pakistan with a
three letter name claiming domains?? Say it is called Big...
As for not responding: I have word from someone I trust, that this is not
true. The owner did respond, but for some reason his response was
neglected.
This domain name is not worth any energy to "safe" it for itself. It is
easy to find a name for a porn site, so I am told. The precedent that it
sets, is what makes it important. An Indian company can shut down a domain
in the USA, because it has a TM, not or hardly known outside India, a
trademark which is also a word... Well, what is next? Love, Free, Good?
> Why *should* s/he keep it? And the Big Tatas abused their corporate power to
> gain control of it.
Yes, and perhaps also to boost their ego. On their website the House of
Tata used this as a proof of international recognotion of their trademark
and the good reputation of their services... I've asked WIPO what they
thougt about using UDRP to get recognition of a trademark
internationall: rather easy and cheap way to get it. They did not bother
to reply.
> If anything, there should be a new WIPO rule for situations like this - both
> parties should have all their domains deactivated; they should never be
> allowed register a domain again; and the "panel" should be taking outside for
> an ass-whuppin'.
It is too easy now to file a complaint and win it. It makes a lot of
corporate entities greedy. ICANN should talk to WIPO and tel it to
stick to the rules and not invent new ones. But it doesn't dare
too. The IP/TM lobby is rather strong, also inside ICANN. If we do not say
out loud we don't like it, they will take more and more and more.
There is even a complaint filed againt dw.com. Please, look that name up.
It is used in very good faith, since 1994. The complainant (we don't know
yet who it is, well I do not) may fail to get the name. But the fact that
a complaint against a name like that is filed, shows what ideas people
have of the UDRP and WIPO: you may get any name through them. And that is
not much beside the truth. A number of cases are dealt with alright. But
then, if you toss a coin you are right 50% as well, aren't you? There are
too many wrong decisions and the so-called arbitrators are accountable to
nobody. Well if they are not accountable to anybody, people do what those
who pay them, want them to do. Like hitmen. I cannot notice much
difference.
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Marc Schneiders --- http://bodacious-tatas.org: no not what you think
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
> Marc Schneiders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Swerve wrote:
> >
> > > Excellent web page, Marc.!
> > >
> > > > *---------------------------------------------------------------------*
> > > > Marc Schneiders --- http://bodacious-tatas.org: no not what you think
> > > > *---------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
> > Thanks :-) Is it sarcastic enough?
> >
> > >
> > > Also,
> > >
> > > 1.Life
> > > 2. Love
> > > 3. Freedom
> > >
> > > +many others
> > >
> > > are also trademarked as single words.
> >
> > Yes, and the bodacious-tatas.com case sets precedence for the owner of
> > Love(tm) to have a domain Slove.com cancelled.
> >
> > > Perhaps we'll see a day when WIPO trademark lawyers try to hijack domains
> > > that use those words as well.
> > >
> > > Language itself is being threatened by certain corporate interests. The
> > > phenomena is a Global one.
> >
> > You are very right here, I'm afraid. It is not merely a matter of small
> > companies being ousted by big ones at a cheap rate though WIPO. It is also
> > about free speech. But who cares about that these days?
> >
> > Well, I have collected a number of domains sufficient to protest all this
> > big-corporate and UN-aided theft, even if they steal a few from me. The
> > problem is: the press isn't even interested anymore in the victims of
> > UDRP. It has become common. And imagine what will happen after the new
> > gTLDs are introduced and the first five million names have been registered
> > in those... WIPO is going to be very busy. And we will all be bored by the
> > news on the 50,000th case and accept it like we accept parking tickets.
> >
> > I hope my last remark will proove to be wrong, but I am cynical about it.
> > --
> > *---------------------------------------------------------------------*
> > Marc Schneiders --- http://bodacious-tatas.org: no not what you think
> > *---------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Marc Schneiders --- http://bodacious-tatas.org: no not what you think
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
