Domain wasn’t registered in bad faith, but panelist asks complainant to make a different argument.
I’m dumbfounded.
A single member UDRP panelist with National Arbitration Forum has ordered the domain name VideoLink.com be transferred — after, apparently, asking the complainant to modify its argument to the panelist’s liking.
VideoLink, Inc. said it started using the VideoLink term in commerce in 1999. Xantech Corporation registered the domain name in 1995, so the respondent could not have registered the domain name in bad faith.
Some complainants have argued that the relevant date for registration in a UDRP is when a domain name is renewed. In other words, a domain name can be renewed in bad faith. Only a handful of panelists have accepted this view.
But in this case, according to panelist Bruce Meyerson’s decision, he actually asked the complainant to make this argument so he could order the domain name transferred.
C. Additional Submission
At the request of the Panel pursuant to Rule 12, Complainant provided an Additional Submission contending that the UDRP analysis should occur not when Respondent originally registered the domain name but when Respondent renewed the domain name in June 2010.
Xantech did not respond to the UDRP. Had it done so, perhaps it wouldn’t have lost the domain name. But it shouldn’t have lost the domain name under any circumstances given its date of registration. And, according to Meyerson’s written decision, he asked the complainant to provide an additional submission in order for Meyerson to transfer the domain name on a generally rebuked policy interpretation.
Amazing.
Mike says
Words fail me. So lets get this right. As soon as you Renew “A” domain you are open to UDRP decision against you IF “A” Party in Any Country happens to have obtained “Rights” in that name . Doh. So what are they saying, that the Respondent does not accrue any common law rights in the time prior to the renewal . It just does not make sense to make such a ruling. I do hope that the Respondent in present case appeals the decision to Court .
Steve says
The arbitrator basically coached the complainant into stealing the domain name. The arbitrator should be thrown in jail.
The case wouldn’t even be allowed to be filed in Canada if it was a .ca. Cira.ca says if the .ca name was registered before you registered your trademark, GO SUCK DIRT.
THE UDRP SYSTEM IS A JOKE!
David Gruttadaurio says
Well said and there you go – a cottage industry has just been born – UDRP Coaching – “the course is $977 with monthly coaching calls and…”
Nat Cohen says
This is one of the most outrageous UDRP decisions ever.
The panelist found that renewing an inactive domain name that was registered prior to the Complainant’s gaining trademark rights is a violation of the UDRP.
This is exactly the kind of mischief that results from Panelist David Bernstein’s pushing his “Renewal in bad faith” interpretation of the UDRP. Making matters worse, WIPO uses Bernstein as one of its two ‘expert’ panelists to instruct other panelists in how to interpret the UDRP.
More background on this issue at: http://www.domainarts.com/2013/11/07/push-to-adopt-renewed-in-bad-faith-standard-in-udrp-puts-investment-domains-at-risk/
Thomas says
How much did they pay you, Bruce??
Seb says
This is enough NOW !
Mr Bruce Meyerson must no longer be allowed to be a panelist in ANY UDRP.
NEVER EVER.
NAF must overturn this decision, return the domain to its legitimate owner and apologize for the wrong doing.
Mr Bruce Meyerson also needs to be judged in a real court of law and pay damages to the owner of VideoLink.com with the dirty money he earned from such unbelievable cases.
Dirty.Lawyer says
I will be exposing all the UDRP dirty lawyers at dirty.lawyer when the site goes live. All in good time. 🙂
Dirty.lawyer says
I don’t wish to rub salt into the wounds but aren’t video and link generic words? Further. It would have been impossible for the Respondent to know he or she was acting in breach of UDRP rules in 1995 the UDRP inception wasn’t until October 1999. Tut. Tut. Mr naughty lawyer.
Peter T says
This is so wrong on so many levels.
Domainer Extraordinaire says
Scumbag panelist with an agenda to be the darling (pick) of future plaintiffs that are looking to steal a domain name.
temphi says
Even if you registered a domain name for the maximum 10 years, eventually you would have to renew it and under this ruling you would lose it.
Another Reply says
http://www.brucemeyerson.com you have to take at look at this guys website he thinks he is some super lawyer. The Nazis thought they were right too, yeah right.
Henry says
This is all the more reason to sue and enjoin the lawyer himself regardless of UN convention. This is making mockery of the legal system.
Perhaps, it’s time for domain owners to start lawyering up if you consider this a viable business. Bullies will always try something no matter how mundane. They have done enough for a class action. There has to be a way.
Another Reply says
The UDRP is not a legal system it’s purely administrative. This is why Panelist are allowed to be corrupt.
Digital Address says
This has the potential to open the floodgates!
Digital Address says
Today at TDNAM, a great one is coming up: FiniteSystems.com (1998). Only problem is Cummins (Columbus, IN) owns System (2001) at MARKMONITOR INC. They could easily use this new “dirty trick” to secure the domain away from the new owner!
Digital Address says
There are now two bidders!
And InfiniteSystem.com can be bought “Now” for $2,994.!
Digital Address says
Neglected to mention that we are the other bidder!
Khan says
What a nut job for making this conclusion!
How dirty and low can you go?
Mike says
I was thinking on this. What someone needs to do is approach him as if to be a UDRP complainant (as I am sure he acts for them as well as sits as a Panelist) and he see what compromising things he might say to you as regards your chances etc etc etc. Word it right and securely and see what he says. He may say “Oh you can refer to my decision of XXX which will deal with that point” etc .