ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Respondent Defaults, but Panel Finds Reverse Hijacking Anyway
    posted by michael on Wednesday January 01 2003, @05:40AM

    dtobias writes "In what may be a first for the UDRP, a panelist has made a finding of Reverse Domain Hijacking in a case where the respondent failed to respond, in the dvla.com decision from WIPO."



    The complainant, British government agency Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, apparently is unhappy with its logical site address within gov.uk and, catching "dot-com-itis" with the rest of the world's marketroids, wished to have an address that incorrectly implies that they are a commercial entity. Unfortunately, dvla.com is owned and used by American company DVL Automation Inc, of Bristol, Pennsylvania.

    Strangely enough, given that the domain is in active use for a legitimate business, they failed to respond to the UDRP case, which seems to indicate bad management or inadequate legal counsel on the part of that company. Fortunately for them, the panelist found the complainant to be even more incompetent, as they provided facts in their complaint that actually undermined their own claims that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interest in the domain and had registered it in bad faith.

    In the complaint, the British agency (which filed the complaint in its own name, leaving Her Majesty out of it, unlike the recent newzealand.com case) revealed company registration information from Pennsylvania that showed that the respondent was legally registered as a corporation in the name of DVL Automation. It was nice of them to volunteer this information given that the respondent failed to respond; if they had left it out, maybe they would have won, given how panelists are inclined to construe all unknown facts against a defaulting respondent. The complainant further volunteered comments regarding the content of the Web site at the domain in question, which certainly appears to be a legitimate business site. Panelists are divided over whether it's proper for a panelist to do independent investigation of their own (e.g., look to see what site is at a given address, or search trademark records) or if they should be like juries, learning only facts brought before them in the case; in this case, all the relevant information was given the panelist by the complainant.

    The outcome was that the respondent kept the domain, and a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking was made (an extreme rarity, especially in cases where the respondent didn't specifically request this ruling; in fact, some panelists have given rulings where they indicated that they thought a complaint was in bad faith but still declined to find RDNH because they weren't specifically asked to do so).

    The panelist showed particular scorn for the complainant's assertion that it was "inconceivable" that the respondent hadn't heard of them, since they were a highly famous driver's licence and vehicle registration agency. According to the panelist, it's perfectly reasonable that an American respondent would in fact be unaware of the names and abbreviations of such agencies outside their home state. This is very reasonable to me; I'm not even entirely sure, offhand, what my own state's licensing agency is called (despite all the time wasted in line getting my license and registration), let alone those of other states and countries.


     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ 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. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  • marketroids
  • dvla.com
  • dvla.com decision
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Respondent Defaults, but Panel Finds Reverse Hijacking Anyway | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 6 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Respondent Defaults, but Panel Finds Reverse H
    by jwkckid1@ix.netcom.c on Wednesday January 01 2003, @11:24AM (#10807)
    User #1468 Info
    I personally found this particular UDRp case interesting
    and funny at the same time. It is funny because of the
    claim by the complaintant that they felt that their
    DN was essentially "Famous" as if it was a famous mark (TM)
    using the IPC's (Intelectual Property Constituency's)
    frequently bogus argument to justify their complaint.
    In addition the other funny part is that the respondant
    of the DN in question or dvla.com did not reapond as if
    the UDRP was not really relevant and yet won because of the
    bogus argument of the Famous Mark argument by the complaintant,
    hence the pannel arrived at a seemingly just a bogus decision
    as to in effect say a reverse Domain Name Hijacking was
    being attempted by the complaintant before the actual fact, yet
    using the UDRP to bolster it's bogus claim anyway.
    Simply amazing, yet compleatly stupid on the part of both
    the complaintant and the Panel!

    Regards,
    Jeff Williams
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Respondent Defaults, but Panel Finds Reverse H
    by Muhhk on Thursday January 02 2003, @12:27AM (#10813)
    User #3085 Info
    So the DVLA decide to follow the fine example of the Financial Services Authority, which attempted to reverse-hijack fsa.co.uk from a steel company.

    Good to see that these various government agencies are clued-up as to what all these domain names actually do...
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Respondent Defaults, but Panel Finds Reverse H
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Thursday January 02 2003, @12:56AM (#10815)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    That one didn't make a finding of reverse domain hijacking, however.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    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