Comments on: Canadian Broadcaster CTV Loses Battle for CTV.com

By: the wire

the wire — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:32:12 +0000

[...] song, it looks like Murat Yikilmaz of Turkey has won the CTV.com domain – seems like Karma to mehttp://domainnamewire.com/2008/06/11/canadian-broadcaster-ctv-loses-battle-for-ctvcom/Posts from the The Wire Category at TV SquadThe wire actor Clark Johnson is going to direct a short [...]

By: josephd

josephd — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:35:07 +0000

I think we are losing a part of the main point regardless of the merits of the complaint. The merit is not the issue, obviously and many domains have been reverse-hijacked regardless if there was merit or not. The issue I stress is the competency of the panelist. Who cares if there is merit or not to the complaint; if the panelist is someone who is not that familiar with the workings of domain names and the internet, although they may be retired judges, then the process is going to be totally skewed to the detriment of the domain holder, to wit, the retired judge in this case. Heaven knows how many domain issues I’ve dealt with this past year with lawyers who are 70 years of age and older who have absolutely no clue of what I am talking about when I discuss domains. The other party insisted on using this lawyer who is over 75 and it was a nightmare dealing with him. If this lawyer became a panelist, God forbid…

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:20:52 +0000

@ Steve, David – my point is not that I want the complainant to be able to appeal, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they asked for that same right if the respondent had it in a split decision.

By: Steve M

Steve M — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:15:23 +0000

I agree w/David, Andrew.

The burden of proof for someone wanting to take from another should rest with the one trying to do the taking.

And in any case, CTV can still certainly “appeal” ; albeit it would now have to be via a US, Canadian, or Turkish court.

As David says, most UDRP cases are very obvious; making unanimous decisions completely justified.

By: David J Castello

David J Castello — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:37:51 +0000

I disagree, tt should be unanimous on a 3 person panel to take away a name because the burdon of judgement should always be on the Complainant.

Most UDRP decisions are a slam dunk because most Respondents are dopey cybersquatters (read the decisions). However, if even one panelist objects the name should not be transferred because no panelist is going to object to a blatant TM violation.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:30:33 +0000

@ Steve – but wouldn’t this be a case where the complainant would say “hey, someone found in my favor so I should be able to appeal”? I think it goes both ways.

By: Steve M

Steve M — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:12:25 +0000

Given the strong factors which are clearly in Yikilmaz’ favor here, the fact that even one of the panelists was willing to nevertheless allow CTV to steal this domain only serves to point out again that; when three panelists are utilized by the parties as is the case here; all three should be in agreement before a domain is taken away from someone.

2 to 1 rulings should not be sufficient to do so.