Using the UDRP, when a registrar owns the domain
Date: Monday July 12 2004, @02:09PM
Topic: Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

Nagle writes "Some registrars trade in domain names, either directly or using affiliates. We have a domain dispute in such a case. The registrar involved has registered the domain with the NSI registry, but has provided no "whois" info at all in their own registry. The registrar then routed the domain to "pool.com", an affiliate which is supposedly auctioning it off. The registrar tells us that at the conclusion of the auction, the whois information will be updated with the identity of the winner of the auction.

The UDRP form requires waiving any claims against the "registrar", contemplating that the registrar is a neutral party in a domain dispute. But when a registrar apparently owns names for its own account, is it possible to still use the UDRP?

We have a registered US trademark identical to the domain name in dispute, so we could win either a UDRP proceeding or an Anti-Cybersquatting Act case. This is open and shut. But we're not yet sure who to proceed against.

Has this ever come up before?"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Using the UDRP, when a registrar owns the domain | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 11 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.
Generic?
by GeorgeK on Monday July 12 2004, @03:59PM (#13933)
User #3191 Info | http://www.kirikos.com/
If the domain in question is generic, even if you have a trademark in one category, it would not prevent others from legitimately using that domain in commerce for other products. Apple Computer has a registered trademark on "apple", but if Apple.com expired and got deleted, I wouldn't hesitate to try to register it, to sell apples. :)

Since the name just dropped, presumably (I guess you won't tell us the domain name?), you should know soon who the new registrant is....
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Slander
by Anonymous on Tuesday July 13 2004, @04:11AM (#13934)
I hope you'll be sued for slander if you accuse anyone or any company of cybersquatting if in fact there is no cybersquatting.

Slander is stating someone committed a crime when they haven't committed a crime.

And just because someone owns your trademark in an extension and offers that domain name for sale doesn't necessarily mean they've cybersquatted.
 
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Slander by wipowatch Tuesday July 13 2004, @06:00AM
You Don't Understand Pool.com
by jberryhill on Tuesday July 13 2004, @08:40PM (#13950)
User #3013 Info

You don't understand how Pool.com operates. They, and their registrar network, target expiring domain names based on expressions of interest from a "pool" of customers. If the Pool network is successful in registering the domain name, it is assigned to the winner of an auction among those customers who initially wanted to register the domain name. Pool is not registering domain names for "itself" - it is indeed registering domain names in response to requests received from prospective registrants. The problem is that you are so gung-ho to go after the domain name (which you failed to pick up via Snapnames), that you aren't waiting to find out who it is that wins the assignment process.

The presence of this question on Icannwatch underscores the growing disconnect between people who knew "how things worked" four or five years ago, and people who know how they work today.

Pay attention. The ball moves.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]




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

The URL for this story is:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/12/229224