Part of the issue here is a possible miscommunication between Brenda and
your lawyers, or maybe some misinformation (playing that telephone game).
Since Brenda was not at the office on Friday, we will have to revisit this
on Monday. All in all, I know for a FACT that we would NOT act outside of
our powers "just because" (act as judge and jury as you stated).
...
Charles Daminato
TUCOWS Product Manager (ccTLDs)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, JJF wrote:
> Tucows inhouse counsel Brenda Lazare initially agreed that our lawsuit being
> filed back in December in Florida, was filed in the proper jurisdiction.
> Yesterday, Brenda phoned our attorney and said she changed her mind and said
> the only proper jurisdiction is Canada and she was transferring the domain
> to Gillette (the complainant).
>
> I then posted to this board and the messages have been mixed but I believe
> Tucows now knows they are wrong and we were right.
>
> The only reason we are fighting this is principal, surely it's not the
> monetary value of "foamy.com". We have thousands of domains that are much
> more valuable. We simply felt we did nothing wrong and we shouldn't lose a
> domain simply because a trademark holder can pick a favorable arbitrator
> (the national arbitration forum goes almost 90% for the complainant and
> needs to so they can keep getting the business) and win any domain.
>
> The whole system is nonsense.
>
> We may still lose in court but at least it will be with a real judge who
> isn't being paid off.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loren Stocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 2:45 PM
> To: Jack
> Subject: Re: [Domain Disputes - TUCOWS is now acting as judge and
> jury!!!]
> Importance: Low
>
>
> Hi Jack,
>
> You stated that:
>
> "Today TUCOWS has decided that the only proper jurisdiction is CANADA
> (principal office of registrar) and is transferring the domain even though
> there is still a lawsuit pending in Florida."
>
> Clearly Tucows is in error to suggest this, but they didn't act on this. How
> did they communicate this to you?
>
> I haven't read the ruling -- is it WIPO? -- but I can't believe anyone could
> win "foamy." What non-sense.
>
> Best, Loren
>
>
>
>
> "Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Back in December we lost an arbitration on the domain "foamy.com"
>
> We disagreed with the decision and within the required 10 day time period we
> filed a lawsuit against the complainant to halt the transfer of the domain
> and was told by Tucows counsel Brenda Lazare that the domain would NOT be
> transferred and would be kept on hold pending the outcome of our lawsuit.
>
> ICANN UDRP rules state the following as far as jurisdiction for a lawsuit:
>
> Mutual Jurisdiction means a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a)
> the principal office of the Registrar (provided the domain-name holder has
> submitted in its Registration Agreement to that jurisdiction for court
> adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from the use of the domain
> name) or (b) the domain-name holder's address as shown for the registration
> of the domain name in Registrar's Whois database at the time the complaint
> is submitted to the Provider.
>
> We filed our lawsuit in Florida which is where the domain is registered
> according to the whois database.
>
> Today TUCOWS has decided that the only proper jurisdiction is CANADA
> (principal office of registrar) and is transferring the domain even though
> there is still a lawsuit pending in Florida.
>
> ICANN rules state that a domain must be kept on HOLD and not moved until all
> litigation is resolved.
>
> TUCOWS AND OPENSRS are now acting as judge and jury.
>
> WE WILL BE MOVING ALL 2000 OF OUR DOMAINS AWAY FROM OPEN SRS AS THE RENEWALS
> COME DUE AND WOULD ADVISE YOU ALL TO LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT TUCOWS BLATANT
> DISREGARD FOR ICANN POLICIES.
>
> Does everyone here want to have to resolve their disputes in a Canada
> Court???
>
> Jack Ford
>
>
>
>
>
