<?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: Refreshing Discourse from a Domain Name Arbitrator</title>
	<atom:link href="http://domainnamewire.com/2009/05/01/refreshing-discourse-from-a-domain-name-arbitrator/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/05/01/refreshing-discourse-from-a-domain-name-arbitrator/</link>
	<description>News and Views for the Domain Name Industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:25:12 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Johnson</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/05/01/refreshing-discourse-from-a-domain-name-arbitrator/comment-page-1/#comment-402663</link>
		<dc:creator>John Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 09:19:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=6067#comment-402663</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve looked into this guy.   Last year he also decided internationalwineaccesories.com. As lead panelist in a majority decision with Cabel he found in favour of a domainer.   Also in image3d.net he not only rejected the complaint but also found reverse domain name hi-jacking.   So maybe he isn&#039;t so biased after all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve looked into this guy.   Last year he also decided internationalwineaccesories.com. As lead panelist in a majority decision with Cabel he found in favour of a domainer.   Also in image3d.net he not only rejected the complaint but also found reverse domain name hi-jacking.   So maybe he isn&#8217;t so biased after all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Standards of UDRP Handling &#8212; UDRPlaw.net</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/05/01/refreshing-discourse-from-a-domain-name-arbitrator/comment-page-1/#comment-401131</link>
		<dc:creator>Standards of UDRP Handling &#8212; UDRPlaw.net</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 17:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=6067#comment-401131</guid>
		<description>[...] for the complainant under questionable circumstances, and even in the presence of irrefutable dissent and presence of pattern reverse hijacking on 3 party [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color: #FFfbd0">
<p>[...] for the complainant under questionable circumstances, and even in the presence of irrefutable dissent and presence of pattern reverse hijacking on 3 party [...]</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna Hillshill</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/05/01/refreshing-discourse-from-a-domain-name-arbitrator/comment-page-1/#comment-399492</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna Hillshill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 21:25:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=6067#comment-399492</guid>
		<description>This looks like small firm,

&quot;poacher turned gamekeeper&quot; 

sound to me like the fox bragging that it is now guarding the hen house. I guess that we would have to ask the founding partner to know for sure what this means.

&quot;secret weapon in a domain name dispute or a valuable adjunct to your businesses technology&quot;

To me this means that with a trademark and the right &#039;neutral&#039; panelest the value of domain arbitration to the trademark holder is found in the ability to take something that otherwise would have to be bought or done without. (just like real estate) Arbitration in a case like this only works in the long run provided that the target is weak.

In my opinion a careful look at this udrp decision reveals bias on its face and a look at the the website of the firm referenced above is suggestive of the outcome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This looks like small firm,</p>
<p>&#8220;poacher turned gamekeeper&#8221; </p>
<p>sound to me like the fox bragging that it is now guarding the hen house. I guess that we would have to ask the founding partner to know for sure what this means.</p>
<p>&#8220;secret weapon in a domain name dispute or a valuable adjunct to your businesses technology&#8221;</p>
<p>To me this means that with a trademark and the right &#8216;neutral&#8217; panelest the value of domain arbitration to the trademark holder is found in the ability to take something that otherwise would have to be bought or done without. (just like real estate) Arbitration in a case like this only works in the long run provided that the target is weak.</p>
<p>In my opinion a careful look at this udrp decision reveals bias on its face and a look at the the website of the firm referenced above is suggestive of the outcome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffery Cockburn</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/05/01/refreshing-discourse-from-a-domain-name-arbitrator/comment-page-1/#comment-399429</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffery Cockburn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 19:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=6067#comment-399429</guid>
		<description>http://www.waterfrontsolicitors.com/about-us/partners

quote:

Carole Hailey ...

&#039;Carole is a founding partner of Waterfront Solicitors LLP and ...&#039;

&#039;Recently, Carole has assisted a government department and a multi-national bank with the outsourcing of the development of business critical software solutions - two examples of Carole acting as poacher turned gamekeeper!&#039;


-poacher turned gamekeeper! ?

Does anyone know what that means? Do lawyers usually talk that way?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.waterfrontsolicitors.com/about-us/partners" rel="nofollow">http://www.waterfrontsolicitors.com/about-us/partners</a></p>
<p>quote:</p>
<p>Carole Hailey &#8230;</p>
<p>&#8216;Carole is a founding partner of Waterfront Solicitors LLP and &#8230;&#8217;</p>
<p>&#8216;Recently, Carole has assisted a government department and a multi-national bank with the outsourcing of the development of business critical software solutions &#8211; two examples of Carole acting as poacher turned gamekeeper!&#8217;</p>
<p>-poacher turned gamekeeper! ?</p>
<p>Does anyone know what that means? Do lawyers usually talk that way?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffery Cockburn</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/05/01/refreshing-discourse-from-a-domain-name-arbitrator/comment-page-1/#comment-399280</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffery Cockburn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 12:58:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=6067#comment-399280</guid>
		<description>http://www.waterfrontsolicitors.com/intellectual-property/legal-basics/developing-ip/trademarks


&quot;Therefore, a registered trade mark can be a secret weapon in a domain name dispute ...&quot;

... a general editor of, the International Trademark Association’s Annual International Review of Trademark Jurisprudence and Volume II of its annual Trademark Law Handbook. 

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/panel/profiles/harris-matthews.pdf

http://www.waterfrontsolicitors.com/about-us/partners</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.waterfrontsolicitors.com/intellectual-property/legal-basics/developing-ip/trademarks" rel="nofollow">http://www.waterfrontsolicitors.com/intellectual-property/legal-basics/developing-ip/trademarks</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Therefore, a registered trade mark can be a secret weapon in a domain name dispute &#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8230; a general editor of, the International Trademark Association’s Annual International Review of Trademark Jurisprudence and Volume II of its annual Trademark Law Handbook. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/panel/profiles/harris-matthews.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/panel/profiles/harris-matthews.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.waterfrontsolicitors.com/about-us/partners" rel="nofollow">http://www.waterfrontsolicitors.com/about-us/partners</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffery Cockburn</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/05/01/refreshing-discourse-from-a-domain-name-arbitrator/comment-page-1/#comment-399144</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffery Cockburn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 09:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=6067#comment-399144</guid>
		<description>I think that the lead panelest is with the following firm: www.waterfrontsolicitors.com 

on the website under a page with the header &#039;trade marks&#039;

&#039;..Owning a registered trade mark gives you the right to stop any business using a mark that is identical or similar to your registered mark in relation to goods which are identical, similar, and in some circumstances, not similar to yours. Therefore, a registered trade mark can be a secret weapon in a domain name dispute or a valuable adjunct to your businesses technology...&#039; 


- ..and in some circumstances, not similar to yours.

- secret weapon?

trademark law at its best. Thanks WIPO for such a fine &#039;neutral&#039;, I can hardly wait until the request for paperless complaints is approved... better yet WIPO should propose that we all save the bandwidth and let this panelist decide who looses their property without any notice at all.

I will think of him as Matthew SecretWeapon Harris.

Perhaps he has no connection to this verbage, or perhaps he is the firms domain guy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that the lead panelest is with the following firm: <a href="http://www.waterfrontsolicitors.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.waterfrontsolicitors.com</a> </p>
<p>on the website under a page with the header &#8216;trade marks&#8217;</p>
<p>&#8216;..Owning a registered trade mark gives you the right to stop any business using a mark that is identical or similar to your registered mark in relation to goods which are identical, similar, and in some circumstances, not similar to yours. Therefore, a registered trade mark can be a secret weapon in a domain name dispute or a valuable adjunct to your businesses technology&#8230;&#8217; </p>
<p>- ..and in some circumstances, not similar to yours.</p>
<p>- secret weapon?</p>
<p>trademark law at its best. Thanks WIPO for such a fine &#8216;neutral&#8217;, I can hardly wait until the request for paperless complaints is approved&#8230; better yet WIPO should propose that we all save the bandwidth and let this panelist decide who looses their property without any notice at all.</p>
<p>I will think of him as Matthew SecretWeapon Harris.</p>
<p>Perhaps he has no connection to this verbage, or perhaps he is the firms domain guy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Ohashi</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/05/01/refreshing-discourse-from-a-domain-name-arbitrator/comment-page-1/#comment-397850</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Ohashi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 19:44:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=6067#comment-397850</guid>
		<description>Good for tucows. Hope these guys follow their lead.  Can complaints be filed against panelists/how to they keep(or lose) their credentials?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good for tucows. Hope these guys follow their lead.  Can complaints be filed against panelists/how to they keep(or lose) their credentials?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
