| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Talk about Bad Faith...
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 14 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
While GEAC's trademark might not be that famous, consider this, what is the domain name at issue was cocacola.net, and it pointed to Pepsi's website? Or more likely, pointed to a Coke distributor. In such cases, clearly Mueller does not think that trademark owners should own these type of domain names, but rather, that domain name registrants have a legitimate right to use them even though the registrants are using another trademark for commercial purposes.
I disagree with his view. GEAC might not be a very protectable mark, the facts were clear, Newtec used the domain name to point to its own site. Check out the search on Archive.org as proof: http://web.archive.org/web/20010608054549/www.reportingtools.com/index.asp.
Newtec acted in bad faith, the majority saw it, the majority rules.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
While I agree with the dissenting opinion here that the majority, as usual for UDRP decisions, has stretched the policy to the breaking point in order to once again find in favor of a trademark holder, I also find somewhat questionable the motives of the respondent in using the domain name. If it's just used for internal use, there isn't really any point to getting a separate domain name, particularly one with another company's name in it; the purpose could better be served by using hostnames or subdomains within the respondent's own domain, which would not require any registration or renewal fees, not subject them to UDRP proceedings, and would organize their sites in a more logical structure.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
Recent UDRP panels, and parties to UDRP disputes, have used the Wayback Machine to demonstrate bad faith. The panel in this case did not use it, but if the panel had, it would have confirmed the complainant's argument that GEAC.net had been used in bad faith by NEWTEC. See here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://geac.net, and http://web.archive.org/web/20010608054549/www.reportingtools.com/index.asp.
The NEWTEC content was available as early as June 8, 2001. This looks like bad faith, and in prior UDRP decisions, panels have found such use by competitors to be bad faith.
This decision has received a lot of attention today, but there are other, far more questionable cases that people should direct their attention to.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
Here is a perfect example of what the commenters above should be upset about: WIPO released a decision this morning in Case D2001-1340, located at http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1340.html, for the domain name BookstoreManager.com. No response was filed. The panelist, Thomas D. Halket, granted transfer to the complainant anyway.
The words "bookstore manager" are generic. This case is more like what Milton Mueller referred to as a "pissing match", and should not have been decided under the UDRP.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
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
|
