| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.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
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
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
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
