Man gives controversial domain name to Beck after proving a point.
Isaac Eiland-Hall just won a highly publicized case against Glenn Beck over the domain name glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com. As soon as he won, he did something surprising: he offered the domain name to Beck for free.
In a letter (pdf) to Beck, Eiland-Hall explained that he has met his objectives with the domain name and web site, and points out to Beck that bringing the case made things worse for Beck.
It bears observing that by bringing the WIPO complaint, you took what was merely one small critique meme, in a sea of internet memes, and turned it into a super-meme. Then, in pressing forward (by not withdrawing the complaint and instead filing additional briefs), you turned the super-meme into an object lesson in First Amendment principles.”
In explaining his reason for voluntarily handing over the domain, Eiland-Hall wrote:
“…I want to demonstrate to you that I had my lawyer fight this battle only to help preserve the First Amendment. Now that it is safe, at least from you (for the time being), I have no more use for the actual scrap of digital real estate you sought…
Managing Intellectual Property published an article today saying World Intellectual Property Organization will offer a fast-track UDRP starting next year.
No, this is not the proposed “Uniform Rapid Suspension”. And, according to the article, WIPO says it can introduce this “Fast Track” without any interaction from ICANN.
How can WIPO do this? It plans to make changes to its supplemental UDRP rules. These are the rules that each arbitration provider adds to ICANN’s rules. The rule changes will be open to a 30 day comment period, according to the article.
It’s unclear exactly what will be different in fast track, other than getting a response back from the panel faster. But WIPO says it expects up to 50% of disputes to be handled under fast track and it will cost significantly less than the regular UDRP.
What is clear is that WIPO hopes to win over a lot of customers (i.e., complainants) with this new plan thanks to venue shopping. Complainants will like the lower fees, faster turnaround, and higher likelihood of success. That means National Arbitration Forum would have to follow suit or lose more customers to WIPO.
I have a call into WIPO and several domain attorneys to understand more about WIPO’s plans, and will update accordingly.
Tucows CEO Elliot Noss seized an opportune moment to call out UDRP provider World Intellectual Property Organization during the first day of ICANN’s Seoul meetings.
During a session on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, WIPO’s Eun-Joo Min commented that one of the problems with domain expiration is that registrars handle it inconsistently and in a non-transparent manner:
I think it is really important for the — not only for — especially for the registrants, but also for the general public to have some predictability about the life of that registration and not be subject to the whim of different registrars.
Anyone who reads some of WIPO’s panelist decisions in domain arbitration could flip that around on WIPO, and Noss did just that:
>>ELLIOT NOSS: Great. I find it ironic that comment is coming from WIPO. Having been a participant in a number of UDRP proceedings, there is an order of magnitude more transparency in registrars’ processes than there is in the UDRP process. In fact, we would see bordering on arbitrary decisions around time periods for submissions, the availability of submissions, things that would be found late an hour after a time period, things that would be allowed three weeks after a time period, and they all tended to go in a single direction.
So I would hope that WIPO could aspire to the level of transparency that registrars generally offer.
>>EUN-JOO MIN: Are published on the Internet.
>>ELLIOT NOSS: They’re published but not followed.
>>EUN-JOO MIN: They’re very transparent.
>>ELLIOT NOSS: And they say you may or may not allow extra time for submissions. You may or may not honor the time periods.
What’s frustrating to Noss and many domain owner is how WIPO and NAF arbitrators decide procedure inconsistently and are given the leeway to do so. Sometimes a response to a UDRP will be filed an hour late and the arbitrator will decide to consider it. Other times they don’t. Technically, complainants are only allowed to file a additional submission if the arbitrator asks for it, but this is rarely followed. When received, arbitrators usually take the additional submission into consideration; but sometimes they don’t. Even when they don’t, they usually note that “it didn’t add anything substantial”. This means they actually read the additional submission and considered it, but for the record they say they aren’t considering it.
So WIPO, here’s the message. Just publishing guidelines on your web site isn’t enough. You have to be consistent about them, and not favor the complainant. It’s like a registrar saying on its web site that you can usually renew your domain within a 30 day grace period, but giving some people only 10 days and others 50 days.
Sony wins a Walkman domain name, but don’t count on a new web site any time soon.
Sony Corporation has been awarded the domain name Walkman.net in a domain arbitration case at World Intellectual Property Organization.
Sony invented the iconic Walkman in the late 70s. Walkman became somewhat of a generic term for portable music devices (similar to Scotch Tape for clear tape) until MP3 players went mainstream this decade. Sony still uses the brand for its portable audio devices.
So is Sony looking to launch a Walkman-specific web site? Don’t hold your breath. In 2000, the company won the domain name Walkman.COM through arbitration. To date, that web site has merely displayed an “under construction” page.
An arbitrator with World Intellectual Property Organization has awarded the domain name DKB.com to Deutsche Kreditbank AG. The owner of DKB.com, DKB Data Services, had invalid contact information and may have been dissolved — which probably explains why it didn’t respond to the complaint.
Arbitrator John Swinson found that the domain was registered in bad faith because it has not been used:
The Respondent has apparently held the domain name for a significant amount of time (for over seven years) without any evidence of use. The Respondent provided no evidence of intended use. Further, it does not seem conceivable that the Respondent has legitimate plans to use the disputed domain name in the future when the name has been dormant for such an extended period of time and where (as the evidence suggests) the Respondent no longer exists.
Deutsche Kreditbank AG has filed a case with World Intellectual Property organization to get the domain name DKB.com. The domain was registered back in 1996 and DKB Data Services, Inc has owned the domain since at least 2001 (the earliest available whois record). Unless something crops up in the case that’s not evident, can you say “reverse domain name hijacking”?
What’s troubling about this decision is that it’s highly unlikely Deutsche Kreditbank was actually being targeted with the domain name. When other companies see decisions like this, they rush to file a UDRP to beat out other companies that have similar names. It reminds me of Versa Capital Management. It was found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking for VersaCapital.com, but then won rights to the domain Versa.com. That means that Nissan probably could have gotten the domain name Versa.com for its Versa car brand if it had only filed a UDRP prior to Versa Capital, which creates a “gold rush” mentality.
Sony Corporation has been awarded the domain name Walkman.net in a 
