Lawsuit filed over Pac12.com domain name.
The owner of the Pac12.com domain name has sued the Pacific-10 collegiate athletic conference in an effort to keep his domain name.
Austin Linford filed the suit (pdf) after the PAC-10 filed a UDRP complaint (pdf) with World Intellectual Property Organization to get the domain name Pac12.com. Linford is asking for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.
Although it originally appeared that the domain name changed hands immediately after the PAC-10 announced it was changing to the PAC-12, I’m now convinced that the same person owned the domain name. Linford just used different registrant information in WHOIS. This means he owned the domain name some five years before the conference announced its name change.
Linford changed the contents of Pac12.com to a play on the late Tupac Shakur after the PAC-10 sent him a cease-and-desist letter.
In addition to registering Pac12.com, Linford also says he registered Pacific12.com and PACtwelve.com.
The legal filing in U.S. District Court in Utah should halt the UDRP proceeding. In his complaint, Linford says the PAC-10 tried to stack the deck in its favor by selecting two UDRP panelists who were graduates of PAC-10 schools.
mike says
you get to pick the UDRP panelists if you are the complaintant?
Mel Bergdorf says
In a 3 panel you can pick 1
Respondent picks 1
And the third is chosen by the Provider from a list of 5 names in which both Complaintant and Respondent strike 2 names each of people they do NOT want on the Panel
mike says
I have never heard that before. Thats a pretty big deal. The PAC 10 could not have picked 2 PAC 10 Panelist, unless the 5 that were provided were all PAC 10, which I doubt was the case. Wouldn’t some sort of panelist scorecard be golden? The info is out there. Who is “the provider” and who decides if it one panelist or three?
Thanks for the info.
Nick says
Interesting that I have been hearing about this and wasn’t aware it was in my hometown. Local news station is now covering it. I think they explain it pretty well “David vs Goliath”.
Here is the local take on the issue.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14481772
Paul Keating says
Mel: NAF and WIPO have different rules for picking the presiding panelist (the chair).
Your explanation works only for NAF. In a WIPO UDRP, each side must rank the 5 names that WIPO provides and the one with the highest overall score is the presiding panelist.
j says
another reason udrp is a waste
Mel Bergdorf says
@ Paul
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, that was NAF procedure I was referencing.