Comments on: Paris Wins Parvi.org in Disturbing Domain Name Arbitration Decision

By: Marc J. Randazza

Marc J. Randazza — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:20:14 +0000

You wrote:

If the domain wasn’t registered in bad faith but was later used in a way to violate Paris’ trademark, its redress is in the courts, not UDRP

Be careful what you wish for. You are correct that the UDRP requires both bad faith registration and bad faith use. However, the ACPA only requires one of the two.

I would counsel domainers to really think about what it means though, if it is easier to win an ACPA case than a UDRP. When a UDRP filing fee is $1500, but a federal court filing fee is $300, there is already incentive to file a court case over a UDRP. A UDRP complaint is a lot more work than an ACPA complaint (although an ACPA case is more expensive than a complete UDRP).

If trademark owners are more incentivized to file ACPA claims than UDRP claims, do you think that they are going to file ACPA claims and *only* ask for a transfer of the domain name? No… they’ll ask for statutory damages ($1000 to $100,000) and they’ll ask for attorneys fees (which could be awarded).

I agree that the logic in this case is convoluted. I mean, its a stretch that would make the Goatse guy cringe. Nevertheless, if it becomes the prevailing view, then it becomes the prevailing view, and we’ll have to accept it.

My voice is here to ask you to consider whether it would be a bad thing that mark holders might have a heightened incentive to file in a forum where there are no damages available. At the end of the day, a domainer who uses a domain in bad faith is probably not going to get away with it. But, if he’s going to lose, better to lose at WIPO than in federal court.

By: UDRP – A Guest Post EVERY DOMAINER MUST READ | DirectNavigation.com

UDRP – A Guest Post EVERY DOMAINER MUST READ | DirectNavigation.com — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:50:14 +0000

[...] that did not exist at the time he initially registered the domain. A technology enthusiast recently lost parvi.org to the City of Paris in spite of the arbiter finding that there was no evidence that he registered [...]

By: John Berryhill

John Berryhill — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:45:08 +0000

Best. UDRP. Line. Ever.

“Like the panelist in the Octogen trio of cases, this Panel finds guidance in answering this question from the analysis and reasoning adopted in the Telstra decision.”

Of course he does.

He WROTE the Telstra decision.

ROFL.

By: mike

mike — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:15:12 +0000

wipo are fools, didnt we already know that?

By: Jeff Walter

Jeff Walter — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:25:47 +0000

I think the question that needs answering is this: should people be forced to comply with unenforceable trademarks by a third party? That’s what WIPO is doing via the UDRP.

By: BidNo

BidNo — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:11:29 +0000

Josh, is it reasonable to have your car seized because someone said you cut them off in traffic? Property seizure is NOT acceptable except under the most extreme circumstances. And the fact that its become a UDRP norm shows how obscenely skewed this process has become.

To make the process fair, how about we award respondent with a property deed to the complaint’s home for cases of reverse domain hijacking?

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:36:49 +0000

Unfortunately he was unable/unwilling to pay to defend himself.

The move to .us is smart…technically, Paris can’t own a .us domain name.