Comments on: Project.me Domain Dispute Sets Dangerous Precedent

By: The Shhit

The Shhit — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:08:02 +0000

I personally hope that the .me domain value remains low so that normal people like myself can get some very brandable and recognizable names for cheap and make fun websites like you could at the dawn of the internet. Everyday peeps! register .me domains and make fun websites before domainers start making it harder by sitting on them! Their are tons of great ones left!

By: Domain Name Wire » News » Paris Wins Parvi.org in Disturbing Domain Name Arbitration Decision - The Domain Industry's News Source

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:05:24 +0000

[...] Christie is on a crusade to implement his vision on UDRP. He was also the presiding panelist on the Project.me case, which broke with precedent by suggesting that the top level domain should be considered part of [...]

By: Stephen Douglas

Stephen Douglas — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:46:05 +0000

Johnny-B

Thanks for making that more clear. It says a lot about domainers walking through a minefield with their investments in any particular domain. My own domain investments never took the extension into consideration for TM issues. I reviewed my list and I don’t think I’ve crossed that lake of thin ice, but I’d suggest that this topic be considered as one of the many legal issues to consider in purchasing a domain name.

I appreciate your answer. Cheers

By: John Berryhill

John Berryhill — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:48:20 +0000

Stephen,

Karen’s been around for a while and has long been a good attorney.

The point is not whether the Respondent won on legitimate interests or on bad faith, since in both cases the Respondent won. The point is that confusing similarity was found in both instances on the basis of including the TLD.

Yes, subsequent panels do cite it for a proposition that wasn’t found in the actual decision, as the panel did decide that “six.net” was identical or confusingly similar to “SIXNET”.

By: Stephen Douglas

Stephen Douglas — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:59:06 +0000

@ Karen

Where did you learn to box so well? You just knocked Berryhill out with your reply. Watch out, there’s a new legal voice making some good sense here. Name: Karen Bernstein

Berryhill’s comment: “Ahh… Everything old is new again.” is moot… his report proved the point that the RESPONDENT WON, but the “recent” approach by ICANN is NEW. But maybe John was right in saying “everything old is NEW again” which is what Ms Bernstein was saying originally.

By: Karen Bernstein

Karen Bernstein — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:53:51 +0000

That’s very interesting, John, but subsequent Panels cite this case for the old proposition that identical/confusing similarity looks to the left of the dot. This most recent decision is quite disturbing because it explicitly acknowledges the departure from the long-standing rule and the decision is written as if the Panel wants to set new precedent here. With the advent of the gTLDs the prospect of this new approach to analyzing the first prong has the potential of wreaking havoc on lawyers and domainers alike. Not pretty.

By: Stephen Douglas

Stephen Douglas — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:01:28 +0000

Great to see a guest writer on DNW. Good article.

@David, I usually agree with you, but that’s a poor excuse not to “entertain” the idea of using SLD’s. No disrespect intended.