On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, Adam Beecher wrote:
> My comment wasn't in relation to trademarks, or even proof for that matter -
> it's about the respondant not *responding*. When they didn't respond to the
> notice(s) sent by WIPO, their credibility drops considerably in my view.
The point is, there are indications they did respond and there
response was refused from some reasons, unknown to me. The point is, there
are cases where communications are sent to the wrong address,
deliberately, as in the barcelona.com case, despite protests. The lawyers
of the complainant made up an address...
The time is much too short to respond. If you happen to be away for two
weeks holiday, bad luck. If this is not a deliberate attempt to get
domains even more easy, it should be changed.
> It implies that the respondant: a) actually *did* register the domain name in
> bad faith;
Loose reasoning. There are many reasons for not responding, including the
ones described above. Bad faith is construed upon all sorts of
behaviour. Let's not add not responding to this, unless there is a clear
indication that it is deliberate.
One could even imagine not responding to a complaint, because it was so
ridiculous, that every reasonable soul would assume it would be
denied. Bodacious-tatas.com is just such a case.
> b) used fake details in the registration record;
Where on earth did you get that?
> c) simply ignored
> the notice sent by WIPO;
How do you know??
or d) all of the above. The fact that Marc isn't
> able to contact the person concerned only serves to strengthen that.
No, the owner has been legally advised not to respond to any enquiries.
> In my opinion, in this case, the respondant lost their right to the domain
> when they didn't respond to the complaint.
Well, you are tougher than WIPO, which decided in favour of non responding
owners in a number of cases.
> The fact that they lost the domain
> is "tough tatas". *snigger*
>
> I should point out that I do agree with the opinion of Marc (and yourself) on
> the UDRP (in some cases) and WIPO (in some cases), but...
>
> "You gotta fight, for your right, to paaaaaaartyyy!"
>
> It would have cost nothing to do so...
How do you know? In most cases lawyers are involved. They don't work for
free.
Please, stick to the facts and do not assume too much when judging ousted
domain owners. No response is not bad faith by definition.
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Marc Schneiders --- http://bodacious-tatas.org: no not what you think
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
> Swerve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I disagree Adam,
> >
> > (the following is my personal opinion, should not be construed as advice or
> > a professional legal opinion.)
> >
> > Bodacious Tatas has been a common phrase in the English language for a very
> > longtime. Imo, no one should be able to stop someone from running a website
> > that uses words in the public domain. It is giving too much power to
> > trademark owners. Where is the proof that the META tags used suggest bad
> > faith?
> >
> > Even if this is the case, perhaps the owner should be fined, or
> > reprimanded in some way, but I am strongly against the impounding of domain
> > names that are public domain words or phrases.
> >
> > It gives way too much power to trademark owners, esp. where the words are
> > not originally conceived by the trademark owner. (As in Amazon and Yahoo.)
> > If i write a poem, and it's titled Yahoo. (dictionary.com definition is a
> > person described as crude or brutish), I believe i have every moral/legal
> > right to title my website that hosts that poem as Yahoo. could be Yahoo.xr
> > for all i care.
> >
> > What could very easily happen with millions of trademarks being
> > registered, is that the freedom to speak could be and is being curtailed.
> > In many cases, corporations are hijacking common words, and expect the
> > courts to give them power that is not rightly theirs.
> >
> > General rules of trademark law do not prevent others from using trademarked
> > words/phrases. They are mandated to be used to prevent others in similar
> > businesses from causing confusion.
> >
> > Trademark laws and the enforcement of them need to be reVamped. I am also a
> > supporter of unlimited extensions for domains, to allow for an infinite
> > amount of websites that want to call themselves single word phrases.
> > Such as Love.com love.net love.moo love.you love.me love.us love.kalamazoo.
> > I also support the notion of offering net users the choice of registering
> > domain names that don't use the dot. As in Love
> >
> > Their are six billion people on this planet. The namespace system needs to
> > be able to offer six billion website names. As long or as short as the
> > individual desires.
> >
> > swerve
> >
> >
> > > From: Adam Beecher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:20:14 -0000
> > > To: Marc Schneiders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Swerve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc: Scott Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, opensrs discuss
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Re: Protecting your domain names and domain names of your
> clients.
> > >
> > > Marc,
> > >
> > > 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 - s/he registered the domain in bad faith, used META tags in
> > > the webpages to demonstrate that, and never even responded to the
> complaint.
> > > Why *should* s/he keep it? And the Big Tatas abused their corporate power
> to
> > > gain control of it.
> > >
> > > 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'.
> > >
> > > adam - Hater of Cybersquatters. And Spammers.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
