[...] Read More >> Share and Enjoy: [...]

[...] interesante que haya justo salido un resultado de un estudio una empresa especialista en protección marcaria con un dato que muestra que mi intuición no es [...]

[...] Andrew Allemann of Domain Name Wire posted an interested article this morning showing that nearly 7,000 domains won through UDRP have expired. The article was based on the news release by Corporate Service Company, which stated: [...]

Clearly, the system doesn’t work given the data on drops/re-registrations. It’s easy to assume there is a disconnect between brand managers and in-house counsel (or attorney) and we know there is, but there is much more involved and the system should learn from this and adapt.

Corporation drops brand, drops name, and then later realizes it costs just a few bucks to hold that old brand hostage forever so no one else can use it. Why not? Currently there is no reason “why not”. Should there be?

7,000 domains won via UDRP have lapsed http://bit.ly/11E8fx (Wow)

Here’s one example…

Big corporation buys out competitor.

Big corporation publicly states they are dropping ex-competitor’s brand name.

Innocent domainer registers dropped brand domain for other use.

Big corporation lawyers become upset and UDRP innocent domainer.

Innocent domainer responds to UDRP with copy of public statement from big corporation that they no longer require the brand.

“Arbitrators” ignore the evidence and deem the innocent domainer a “cybersquatter”.

Big corporation does not renew domain and innocent domainer re-reg’s the domain and has now owned the domain for 7 more years, although original UDRP decision still being used as a hammer by other stupid big corporates.

Any UDRP decisions where the complainant is no longer the registered owner of the name in question should not be able to be used as precedence, because their non-ownership is indicative of an incorrect finding.