| | 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This discussion has been archived.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 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
]
|
| |
|
|
Mueller says, "The Respondent is a servicer and systems integrator of Geac products, and as such has a legitimate interest in the use of the Geac name."
You say, "what [if] the domain name at issue was cocacola.net, and it pointed to ... a Coke distributor."
I'm not a lawyer, but logic tells me that if the Coke distributor is licensed to use the cocacola trademark etc., it has a legitimate interest in using the domain name.
So what's your point besides being adolescently contrary? Is that why you remain "anonymous"?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. This isn't like cases in which an affiliate or retailer or reseller of a product or service uses the name belonging to the 'parent' company as part or all of its domain name, and even those rulings have gone both ways. Even the Respondent appears to describe itself as in a competitive position to the Complainant, see 5. B. Respondent, second last para. The Respondent was attempting to snag traffic otherwise meant for the Complainant, also check out the meta-tags it was using. The Respondent should count itself lucky, such meta-tag use has resulted in punitive damage awards in US courts, sometimes in the $millions. I agree with Anon, there are better poster kids out there. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 3 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
|
