<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Big Companies Get Benefit of Doubt in UDRP Decisions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://domainnamewire.com/2008/11/19/big-companies-get-benefit-of-doubt-in-udrp-decisions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/11/19/big-companies-get-benefit-of-doubt-in-udrp-decisions/</link>
	<description>Domain Name Industry News and Views</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 04:02:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ricardo</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/11/19/big-companies-get-benefit-of-doubt-in-udrp-decisions/comment-page-1/#comment-286117</link>
		<dc:creator>Ricardo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:04:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3291#comment-286117</guid>
		<description>Andrew, excellent points.
I agree with Steve.

They would have been better off with the $ 25K price.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew, excellent points.<br />
I agree with Steve.</p>
<p>They would have been better off with the $ 25K price.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve M</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/11/19/big-companies-get-benefit-of-doubt-in-udrp-decisions/comment-page-1/#comment-286108</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:56:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3291#comment-286108</guid>
		<description>Good point; and I agree with your conclusion that the panelist would have likely found against a domainer (or even a &quot;non-corporate&quot; type individual or entity) were they (us) the respondent.

For this reason, this is an important case we&#039;d all best keep a copy of for our potential future reference and use.

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point; and I agree with your conclusion that the panelist would have likely found against a domainer (or even a &#8220;non-corporate&#8221; type individual or entity) were they (us) the respondent.</p>
<p>For this reason, this is an important case we&#8217;d all best keep a copy of for our potential future reference and use.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

