| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
 UDRP ruling in VIVENDIUNIVERSAL SUCKS.COM dispute
posted by michael on Saturday November 17 2001, @01:31PM
Anonymous writes "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 sporting a combined record of 72-10 in favor of complainants, when acting as single panelists) references the rock group Primus. They attempt to make the case that "sucks" is not always pejorative and therefore might fool "Internaughts" into thinking the site is associated with Vivendi. 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's record - a "perfect" 43-0, and counting, in
favor of complainants (among these was the CORINTHIANS.COM ruling, as sole panelist) is mere coincidence. 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
Click here to comment on this story
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]
|
|
| | |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
UDRP ruling in VIVENDIUNIVERSAL SUCKS.COM dispute
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 21 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
|
If your aim is to set up a noncommercial criticism site at a "sucks" address, .org would make more sense than .com -- or perhaps .info would be even better now. And whoever owns sucks.info can make subdomains of it for whatever criticism sites they wanted, and such subdomains aren't directly subject to the UDRP. (I registered haters.info and offered free redirected subdomains for protest sites, e.g. icann.haters.info, but nobody's taken me up on that offer yet.)
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Tardy coverage sympathetic to Sallen from the Chicago Tribune Online. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
For once, I beg to disagree.
The domain is clearly "abusive" and therefore represents registration and use in "bad faith."
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
|
|
I'm familiar with the Philipssucks ruling, and indeed I have worked alongside Jonathan Turner on a case of mine earlier this year. Confusing similarity to a trademark is a red herring. Gripers should pay attention to what he has to say about legitimacy and bad faith. Succeed on either of those and you're in...
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
On December 5, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court of Massachusetts, remanding the Corinthians case back to the District Court. The District Court had ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction with regard to Mr. Sallen's challenge to an order of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) that the domain name corinthians.com be transferred to a Brazilian corporation pursuant to a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceeding. The Court of Appeals held that Federal subject matter jurisdiction does extend to such claims.
The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals can be read at the following link:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1197.01A
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | |
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | 6 replies beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
