UDRP ruling in VIVENDIUNIVERSAL SUCKS.COM dispute
Date: Saturday November 17 2001, @01:31PM
Topic: Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

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

This discussion has been archived.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
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: UDRP ruling in VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM dispu
by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Tuesday November 20 2001, @02:47AM (#3797)
User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
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 ]
Re: UDRP ruling in VIVENDIUNIVERSAL SUCKS.COM disp
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Wednesday December 05 2001, @09:57AM (#3937)
User #2810 Info
Tardy coverage sympathetic to Sallen from the Chicago Tribune Online. -g
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: UDRP ruling in VIVENDIUNIVERSAL SUCKS.COM disp
by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday May 18 2002, @10:31AM (#6447)
User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
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.
Re: UDRP ruling in VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM dispu
by mjrippon on Thursday November 22 2001, @03:55AM (#3832)
User #2960 Info
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 ]
Corinthians Decision Reversed by U.S. Court of App
by freespeechcenter (registry@freespeechcenter.org) on Thursday December 06 2001, @01:59PM (#3962)
User #3147 Info | http://www.freespeechcenter.org
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 ]
Re: UDRP ruling in VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM dispu
by jdsallen1 on Monday May 06 2002, @07:57AM (#6160)
User #3348 Info
You are a cybernazi.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 6 replies beneath your current threshold.




  • This article comes from ICANNWatch
    http://www.icannwatch.org/

    The URL for this story is:
    http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/17/173121