Panelist decides to render his opinion even though it will be ignored.
Earlier today I wrote about Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service for .uk domain names, and how the registry wants it to be the “final say” on domain disputes for .uk domain names.
UDRP, the arbitration mechanism for a number of top level domain names including .com, is different. It’s meant to be a fast way to resolve clear cut cases of cybersquatting. When a domain is ordered transferred, the owner of the domain can halt that transfer by filing a lawsuit within 10 days of the order.
Since UDRP is considered junior to a real court’s decision, most panelists will suspend a case if a lawsuit is filed over the domain. After all, the panelist’s decision will be moot.
So I found it interesting today to see a decision rendered for Brickman.com.
The domain name is owned by Tucows. Its ownership goes back to 1996 because the domain is part of the surnames domain business the company acquired. It uses the domain for its email address service; if your last name is Brickman you can get an email address like [email protected].
In this case, Tucows filed a lawsuit in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice seeking declaratory relief prior to its response deadline for the UDRP. It also informed National Arbitration Forum about the lawsuit.
Normally, a panelist would just close the case. But not panelist Paul A. Dorf, who decided to go ahead with the case and find in favor of a landscaping company that uses the name Brickman.
Why he did that isn’t clear to me, but Dorf certainly makes a good living with UDRP.
One thing I do know: the complainant didn’t do its homework. It should have know that Tucows would file a lawsuit in Canada. Its legal bill for this domain dispute is about to balloon.
GarotoK says
What a d*ck!
Jokester says
What a “Dorf”!
Thai Poe says
Brickman v Brinkman?
That’s even worse.
Typo in your article perhaps
Andrew Allemann says
@ Thai Poe – it was a typo, thanks
Say what says
” the site contains links PRESUMABLY” to sites that compete
Presumably? You mean he never looked?
Wtf!
George Kirikos says
So a panelist decides to make a decision despite the fact that the court case will have *superior* evidence standards, etc? This alone demonstrates how UDRP is a total joke.
This isn’t some domain owner trying to “game” the legal system to delay justice. Tucows is a legitimate company seeking to ensure that the best possible process is followed to *ensure* justice.
UDRPtalk says
Even if they go to court, how will they overcome the alleged infringing PPC evidence?
How does it benefit Tucows to park these lastnames domains and risk legal issues?
Is it really worth it?
Why do they even have to put PPC links if they are selling email addresses? Why not just dedicate the page to their email service?
George Kirikos says
The TM for “Brickman” claims a first use date of 2004-02-28, and was not filed until July 17, 2009. It did not get registered until December 7, 2010. Clearly the domain name was created well before those dates (August 17, 1996), and so it’s impossible for the Brickman Group to show that the domain was *registered* in bad faith.
As for alleged PPC evidence, at best that’s evidence of “use”. My guess is that a domain name like that gets very little traffic, and so actual damages to the Brickman Group would be de minimis.
Philip Corwin says
All the more reason for ICANN to investigate NAF per ICA’s recent request.
UDRPtalk says
http://www.udrpcommentaries.com/suspending-or-terminating-a-udrp-proceeding/
Apparently, the panelist here was not required to terminate the proceeding and acted within his rights.