On 2001-11-28 (Wednesday) at 13:54:20 -0800, William X Walsh wrote: > They really don't even have a UDRP claim > http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm > > These are the three elements: > > [...] > > (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad > faith. > > But this will be the deal killer. Typically bad faith means that > they only registered the domain name to deprive you of it, or to > sell it back to you. If they have put the domain to use, and are > not competitors of yours, then they have no real bad faith. > > The system should not make it easy for a complainant to take a > domain away from a registrant. It already does that WAY Too easily, > and in ways that even the law would not let them get away with. > > (Yes, I despise the UDRP.)
When I first read the proposed UDRP I thought that it didn't sound *too* bad, although it could have been a lot better. But since it's come into force WIPO (and other) panelists have interpreted so loosely and in so many different ways that it might as well not exist. A complainant going to WIPO may well win even if their case doesn't meet all three requirements as set forth in the UDRP. I got taken to WIPO over a domain name and lost. In the finding the panelist accepted that I hadn't registered the domain in bad faith but then went on to award the domain to the complainant anyway. So (4)(a)(iii) of the UDRP (quoted above) was disproved but the panelist ignored that and did what he felt like. Of course he was only acting in his own economic self-interest, those panelists who find for the complainant more often get given more cases and so pocket more money for being panelists. See http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/169180.html for an article about a study that shows this. Mark.
msg12323/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
