This is an amazingly awful decision. It says that because non-English speakers might be confused by the "sucks" suffix on VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM, the domain name must be turned over to the company it criticizes:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1121.html >the Panel has found that non-English speaking Internet users would be >likely to attach no significance to the appended word 'sucks' and would >therefore regard the disputed domain name as conveying an association with >the Complainant The WIPO panel goes so far as to insist that because the band Primus owns the domain name primussucks.com (named after their 1990 album "Suck on This"), prospective visitors to vivendi.com might get confused about who's who. -Declan --- From: "j d sallen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Declan McCullagh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM UDRP decision Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:30:43 -0500 Yesterday I received the VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM UDRP decision which comes down in favor of pirating this domain name for the company (aka, ordering a transfer). Although, as its (for now) owner, it is my speech rights that are being squashed, I got a good laugh out of the decision. Have they no shame. There is a darkly comic component to the VIVENDI decision. The decision of panelists Sir Ian Barker and Alan Limbury (now a sporting a combined record of 72-10 in favor of complainants, when acting a single panelists) references the rock group Primus. Indeed, they go further with specific mention of Les Claypool, Primus's front-man. Are we supposed to believe that these two "learned" Englishmen are followers of, or familiar with, this particularly quirky rock band? In light of the fact that the complainants in this case are multi-national rock music moguls (who made no mention of Primus or any other group in their complaint, the only communication sanctioned by the UDRP rules), this is one citing that clearly fails the sniff test. I recall reading a widely-published rebuttal of Michael Geists's study on UDRP decisions and process, by an IP lawyer I think, arguing that any Panelists whose decisions were consistently pro-complainant or betrayed an agenda would fast be weeded out. Panelists like Ian Barker are perfect cases in point showing the fallacy of that premise. Or perhaps Roberto Bianchi, whose record is a "perfect" 43-0, and counting, in favor of complainants (among these was the CORINTHIANS.COM ruling, as sole panelist). Such intellectually bankrupt decisions are even more problematic than they first appear because poor decisions serve as precedents that enable more and poorer rulings. The result is a UDRP system that has sent fairness into a death-spiral. Warm regards, J D Sallen ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
