Panel re-writes UDRP and “registered in bad faith” requirement.
The heirs of the late Igal Lichtman, commonly known in domain name circles as Mrs Jello, have lost a UDRP decision for the common name Camilla.com.
The case was filed by Australian clothing company Camilla Australia Pty Ltd, which uses the domain Camilla.com.au.
A three person World Intellectual Property Organization panel determined that, even though the domain name was registered prior to the Complainant having rights in the (common name) Camilla, Lichtman somehow registered the domain name in bad faith.
The panel’s argument was that the domain name was registered speculatively “with an open mind to as to the exploitation of trademark rights” in the future.
This is one of the worst UDRP decisions I’ve read. The three-person panel consisted of David J.A. Cairns, M. Scott Donahey, and Christopher S. Gibson.
First, the panel notes:
The Panel accepts that the Respondent did not and could not reasonably have known of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name in May 2009.
This should be case closed at this point. But then the panel goes on:
The registration of domain names with the intention of ignoring any future trademark rights that might affect the chosen domain names is equally a bad faith registration as is an intention to profit from an existing and established trademark right. In both cases the intention is to profit from the intellectual property rights of another, and to deceive the public in their Internet use.
First of all, Camilla is a common name. Second, since when does the UDRP say this?
In the current case the clear bad faith use is evidence of bad faith registration. The fact that the Respondent has taken no efforts, once the Complainant put it on notice of its trademark rights, to remove the links to the Complainant’s products, is probative that at the time of registration the Respondent was prepared to disregard any rights that might develop from the successful use of the word “camilla” by any business, such as in fact occurred with the Complainant…
…In the present case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered speculatively with an open mind as to the exploitation of trademark rights, and has in fact been used to exploit the Complainant’s trademark rights.
A horrible re-interpretation of UDRP.
Update: Internet Commerce Association released a statement about the case.
Sad to hear this decision. Poor judgement. Another great domain lost by Igal.
Exactly Andrew. This case is a poster-child for all that is wrong with the UDRP. The UDRP has devolved from a tool to combat clear-cut cybersquatting to a way to legitimize the theft of inherently valuable generic domains.
The UDRP panel here has created a Frankenstein – cutting out key elements of the actual UDRP policy, specifically the need to demonstrate that the domain was registered with a bad faith intent to target the complainant – and grafting on elements from a different part of the policy that does not even relate to complainant’s rights.
This is the result when trademark interests run the show, pick the panelists who are frequently active TM attorneys, propose unilateral revisions to the UDRP, and then agree with themselves that the revisions are a good idea.
A more balanced approach is needed.
Are you sure the panelist were not bribed? I think that is the case here. You are free to think otherwise because I don’t see how their position makes any sense on such domain name.
This is purely stealing by trick. I pray such come my way and they make such weighty mistake with silly reasons as given above… they would know better to be careful with their hands and mouth next time!
You don’t fool someone just because you see yourself as “god” to judge over another and think you can go scott free, a fellow human as myself.
No way I would let that happen.
Completely agree with you Nat. This decision worries me. One of the strongest defenses for a Respondent (where domain predates a mark) is that they could not possibly have anticipated Complainant’s “non-existent” right at the time of registration. The Panel has placed a heavy burden on Respondents who must now “anticipate” all possible future rights and guard against all possible outcomes. This is not the Respondent’s burden to bear. It’s the Complainant that must prove that the Respondent registered the domain name with knowledge and intent to target it’s mark. Without that Complainant’s burden has not been met and therefore no case for the Respondent to answer. Shocking!
The question now is “Are the Respondents going to file Court proceedings to block the transfer and reverse the decision” ?. Look let me say this publicly now. It is surely high time that those domainers with the cash to spare (there are a number of well known ones) jumped up and said to the likes of this current respondent “We don’t want to see another bad decision of UDRP stand as sometime in future it will likely be used against us ourselves. Let us fund your legal proceedings to get the decision reversed on XYZ terms” It surely is durely such time for asome philantrophy by large domainers if only in their own ultimate interests. .
sorry for those damn typos !
Following the recent case of the domain name windcreek.com shamefully lost in the UDRP decision, the respondent is now suing the complainant and the arbitration body, in this case NAF.
Maybe some principled lawyer will take on this UDRP case decision by helping to sue the Complainant and, instead of the arbitration body in this case WIPO, or maybe in addition to, suing the three panelists that rewrote the UDRP and made this decision, namely David J.A. Cairns, M. Scott Donahey and Christopher S. Gibson.
I better not reg.ZXSDFK,com today because some company in the next 20 yrs might call itself ZXSDFK, Inc.
Had I registered Twitter,com in 1999, it would have been in bad faith because I should have anticipated that a company one day would call itself Twitter.
There should be some accountability for UDRP and panelist for obvious bad decisions.
Agreed, but what I don’t understand is why they didn’t change the links when notified of a potential TM issue? Had they complied, what appears to be a simple and reasonable request, would the outcome have been different? It’s as if they antagonized the situation by leaving the connecting to the claimants products.
From what i’ve understood this is the key point!
you can reg the name you want if you are not infringing any trademark but if in the next years that name become trademarked and you are advised by them to kindly remove the links of their name you should do that.
It would be the same if i would be the owner of orange.com. When orange become TM, if on my orange.com appear links to the orange mobile service, i must avoid this otherwise they can easily UDRP me.
That may be the worst decision ever in a UDRP.
This is like the movie Minority Report where Tom Cruise and others arrest people for a crime they will commit in the future, except in this case Igal committed no crime.
This is an absolutely insane decision!
I would not totally rule out that these judges were bribed. The panelists had to have intentionally stolen this domain for the complainant. What other conclusion can anybody come to based on such a bizarre outcome?
Maybe they are taking advantage of Igal because he has passed away?
What a bunch of scumbag panelists for making such a decision. This was not justice for anyone — this was theft in my opinion.
I think the key issue is that links infringing on the trademark were not removed when the trademark holder complained.
The case decision is unclear on whether the complainant actually “complained” to Mrs Jello, LLC. It says it was put on notice, but does that just mean the complainant filed a trademark application?
Either way, UDRP is not the appropriate venue to handle the circumstance described.
“The panel’s argument was that the domain name was registered speculatively “with an open mind to as to the exploitation of trademark rights” in the future.”
If that’s true then every name can be lost to a UDRP under this thinking.
@todd “If that’s true then every name can be lost to a UDRP under this thinking.”
Yes every domain name whose owner does not have a trade mark for the name..
As you note, Andrew, it is unclear from the text of the decision whether the registrant received any meaningful notice from the complainant of alleged infringing PPC links prior to the filing of the UDRP, as well as whether any corrective action taken by the registrant after receiving such notice would have led to a conclusion that the registration was not in bad faith.
This decision appears to create a new and impossible to meet duty on domain registrants employing PPC — to both actively monitor every nation’s trademark registrations for any registration that might be identical or confusingly similar to their domain names, as well as to somehow control the advertising logarithms of providers such as Yahoo (the ad provider in this case) — as if Yahoo, Google, et al share their proprietary logarithms!
At a minimum, it seems like the burden should be on holders of trademarks registered after the domain’s registration to notify the domain registrant of alleged infringement and thus provide an opportunity for the domain registrant to cure what is clearly unintentional infringement. That would be a far more reasonable approach than what this panel has just created out of whole cloth.
This decision, which seems to cross the line from legitimate trademark protection to domain theft abetted by arbitration, is one more example of why ICANN needs to engage in serious UDRP review and reform. What’s really is disturbing is that this came from a WIPO panel, which is generally the best of the UDRP providers.
Truly disgusting.
i believe under international law this qualifies ICANN as a terrorist organization.
We have definitely entered “The Twilight Zone”. Insane ruling, unbelievable. Sad, sad, dangerous times for generic owners.
Imo put a simple lander on all of your premiums and use it as an email address, etc. so you can show it was being used for a “legitimate” use other than investment….
One of the last frontiers where kangaroo courts and kangaroo arbi”traitors” are able to run unchecked. Outrageous. Parasites.
Domainers are speculators, just as people who invest in the stock market are speculators. According to this ruling, the logical conclusion is that domaining is an illegitimate enterprise. This is SERIOUS and DANGEROUS precedent.
Did Berkens anticipate this?
The three-person panel of David J.A. Cairns, M. Scott Donahey, and Christopher S. Gibson completely PERVERTED UDRP and made this decision against the UDRP precedent and against UDRP rules.
They basically invented new rules for UDRP themselves and humiliated all the other panelists who follow the existing rules and humiliated the original drafters of UDRP rules.
This decision is a travesty and all the panelists should personally be sued for damages in addition to suing the Australian clothing business who misused the UDRP process and got these three panelists to sing along, in my personal opinion.
This decision puts every generic first name domain in danger, this decision puts every generic domain in danger and as such this is dangerous for domain investment and domain investors so this decision is also a threat to Godaddy who has acquired several portfolios of Generic domains.
I hope some of the millionaires in the business and preferebly Godaddy itself fund a lawsuit against this decision and include the panelists otherwise three out of control panelists have jeopardised the business model of Godaddy and the business models of every domain investor.
That’s really a ridiculous and shameful decision.
I’d suggest Igal’s heirs to sue in court both the Complainant and the three panelists, stopping the transfer of the domain and asking for a duly compensation (for all legal fees incurred).
Get a strong legal representation and kick their asses! 🙂
A shocking decision by three panelists that believe they are untouchable, simply because that has been the way it has been for years – unchallenged. But enough is enough.
The three member panel in this UDRP case that ordered the confiscation of this generic domain name, registered years before the Complainant started using any reference to this term were David J.A. Cairns, M. Scott Donahey and Christopher S. Gibson.
For the sake of any doubt, let us repeat the panelists’ names. The three panelists were David J.A. Cairns, M. Scott Donahey, and Christopher S. Gibson who decided to reinvent the UDRP rules and rob a legitimate domain name holder of a generic domain name, thereby setting dangerous precedents for the future. This decision should not go unchallenged!
Hopefully out there some big guns will decide that this rogue UDRP decision by panelists who earn their fees but feel they are untouchable will be sued directly themselves.
What can you say. Horrible decision.
That is a ridiculous ruling. Those three panelists should be held accountable for this injustice.
Hold on a second… “The fact that the Respondent has taken no efforts, once the Complainant put it on notice of its trademark rights, to remove the links to the Complainant’s products”
Am I readying this right?
As a seller of likely more top and popular first name dot com the last 10 years than any individual I know… I can say there is NO WAY I would first off ever park one and especially one which displayed ads for a company which has the same name.
Is this what was going on? If so I have no sympathy, if that is not the case fine but it is how I read the above.
That is your choice, it is not an affirmative duty under the UDRP. The decision cites “(iii) The domain name in question is a ‘dictionary word’ or a generic or descriptive phrase;” but fails to find ‘camilla’ is a generic?
There’s a Camilla up to possibly be the bloody Queen of England.
This is wilfull subversion of the plain language. This is corporate opportunism via a vanity play by disappointed middling careerists. And this is actionable corruption.
And, as always in these laches cases, there’s a parallel TM scrap. Here, Camilla Franks is trying to steal the traffic of Camilla Freeman-Topper.
Sue the Panelists, sue the WIPO. Deliver us from this relentless stupidity and graft.
@thelegendaryjp But perhaps what IS wrong even so is the FORUM ,which in that event should be a trade mark court case, not a UDRP ?..
@Mike, I can agree with you sure, the bottom line however is they could just refile in the proper forum, then what? Should there be a huge out cry again when they lose? I mean when you look at the facts it is not a shocking out come if correct (displayed ads and did not remove when asked, which btw seems awful nice of them to ask first). The out cry should be purely about the forum used. Should he lose or likely to lose in the proper forum, I would think yes. Mismanagement of the domain is what caused this all be it wrong forum, we need to be accountable for our actions at the end of the day.
The WIPO and M.Scott Donahey should be included in the suit to reclaim.
1. Harvard Law Review singled him out years ago as a ‘trademark activist’ (corporate shill), in their well-known article on Bad Faith, so the WIPO can’t disavow his decisions.
2. The Panel notes: ‘It is true that what has changed is not the Respondent’s use, but the emergence of the Complainant’s new and powerful trademark.’ The language of the ACPA is ‘distinctive at the time of registration.’ The Panel’s cowering awe is not probative.
3. The decision finds the registration predates the TM rights.
4. ‘Good cases make bad law’ is the maxim, and Lichtman had in past routed all his names to ‘sexy dating.’ Thereby MILLY.COM was stolen from his heirs by attorney Ms. Been, who strategically mischaracterized that landing page as porn. Graverobber two, in the instant dispute, profits from the heirs’ failure to show her for a liar in that UDRP. Even though the reroute off of the ‘sexy dating’ page was the heirs’ attempt to meet the Last Panel’s errant demands.
5. Trademark disputes are not within UDRP purview for evidentiary reasons, but also because there are numerous avenues a TM holder can use to control the use. Webhosts are more than happy to shut down a page, as is Yahoo PPC. But a century of ‘likelihood of confusion’ doctrine leaves the complainant empty handed, so they use the UDRP to steal the asset.
If Berryhill and Lin set up a jointly managed defense crowdfund account, we’d be delighted to contribute. Bueller?
Thanks for your reply. I’d contribute.
This new Trans Pacific Partnership agreement will give trademark parasites even more wind in their sails. They want to change the rules in Canada. Cira.ca currently won’t even let you file a complaint if your trademark was registered after the domain name. Go suck dirt is and should be the response. If a trademark ads shows up then certainly the domain owner should be afforded the opportunity to remove the links. As long as no substantial income was created from the link(s) then no harm/no foul.
Kangarooooooo court..
As Mr Corwin stated,
“This decision appears to create a new and impossible to meet duty on domain registrants employing PPC — to both actively monitor every nation’s trademark registrations for any registration that might be identical or confusingly similar to their domain names, as well as to somehow control the advertising logarithms of providers such as Yahoo (the ad provider in this case) — as if Yahoo, Google, et al share their proprietary logarithms!”
The parking providers need to be responsible for the ads they show on your page. How could any domain owner possibly sort out the feeds/trademarks etc. Of course not putting a parking page up would be the best option.
Sad times.
We are not amused.
Camilla is a common first-name. The name Camilla means “young ceremonial attendant” derived from Latin.
“Will Prince Charles Risk Making Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, His Queen?”
http://europe.newsweek.com/should-prince-charles-make-camilla-queen-402742?rm=eu
A frightening decision. A dangerous UDRP precedent. Does the owner of john.com and millions and millions of other first-names.com now need to tremble and spend anxious sleepless nights in the light of this wicked decision by the three panelists: David J.A. Cairns, M. Scott Donahey and Christopher S. Gibson.
Can someone put these three panelists names in big lights on Times Square.
CORRUPTION !
These panelists must go to jail.
You should be ashamed stealing a dead.
Perhaps its time to add these cases and panels to the “Hall of Shame”
Not just a girl’s name. Camilla is generic, generic, generic.
Camilla is a dictionary word in Spanish meaning stretcher or massage bed.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/spanish-english/camilla
There are many websites using the word Camilla for bed. Por exemplo: http://www.maestrocamillas.com
By total speakers Spanish is the third language behind Mandarin and English, or do UDRP panelists chose to ignore the generic nature of words other than those in English.
You are correct about the word Camilla being generic in Spanish speaking countries.
Argentina http://www.camilla.com.ar massage beds
Chile http://www.camilla.cl massage beds
Mexico http://www.camilla.com.mx massage beds
Spain http://www.camilla.es massage beds
In China http://www.camilla.com.cn is fashion leather goods and in Netherlands http://www.camilla.nl is I do not know because I don’t speak Dutch and there must be lots of others.
@Guevara,
None of those Camilla websites paid a UDRP panel, whereas the .AU Camilla did; therefore the Aussie company has sole rights.
Panelists need not consider the actual world, let alone justice. Simply decide in favor of those who pay you. That way, they’ll keep lining up to pay you.
Without negative repercussions for panelists, this will understandably continue.
Joseph Peterson made a valid point that Camilla Australia Pty Ltd was the first to have a go at stealing this domain name even though there are other trademark holders with a trademark for the term Camilla some even preceding their trademark. They had a go and struck lucky with this bunch of panelists who manipulated the UDRP.
The reality is that no entity, with a trademark or not, should be able to steal this generic domain name.
The Complainant Camilla Australia Pty Ltd has an Australian trademark registration Nº 1443488 (filed on August 18, 2011). Camilla Australia Pty Ltd make clothing, including children’s clothing.
TJX Companies Inc., have a USPTO trademark Nº 2824095 (filed on July 16, 2002) with first use date of January 11, 2003 and the trademark is for children’s clothing.
It would appear that TJX have a trademark for clothing that long predates Camilla Australia’s trademark.
I came across this page on the USPTO website http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qs=78144430.
Any ideas what all that was about?
David J.A. Cairns is not just a mere panelist, but was the Presiding Panelist in this case.
Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidjacairns informs us that he is an experienced international arbitrator and advocate based in Madrid, Spain and that and he works in both English and Spanish.
David JA Cairns would therefore have well known that Camilla is a generic Spanish dictionary word.
Absolutely Generic. Camilla is also a geographic place name.
For example, Camilla, Georgia. http://www.camillaga.net . There are probably others and there are endless street names using the word Camilla.
This is a joke, a sad joke. Probably the worst UDRP decision I ever heard of.
I really hope Igal’s family will take this to a proper court and sort it out. The Mickey Mouse panelists should be held accountable for the crap they did.
Meanwhile let’s all start taking some time travel courses, you know just in case …
ICANN and WIPO boards should answer take on this case immediately.
What a shame.
Straight out horrible!
I really hope that Mrs Jello is able and willing to fight for that name.
What do you mean Camilla is a girl’s name, it’s a massage bed? Everybody knows that Camilla is an alcoholic beverage
Camilla is Grappa made by the Italian company DFM S.R.L in Italy http://www.marzadro.it/eng/grappe/camilla.php. They too have a European trademark filed 02 September 2011.
Maybe they should have more right to stealing this domain name than an Australian clothing company.
And what about Marks and Spencers who have a UK trademark for the term Camilla filed over a quarter century ago on 27 February 1990 for trays and many other kitchen items. Maybe they should have stealing rights over all others.
Are the Marks and Spencers’ Camilla trays and dishes anything to do with the Camilla Brøyn trays and dishes?
http://www.nordicdesigncollective.eu/designer/camilla-broyn/trays-and-dishes.html.
My goodness. There are so many Camillas out there.
You must be confusing Marks and Spencers’ Camilla trays and dishes and Camilla Brøyn trays and dishes with Spode Camilla china http://www.blueandwhite.com/thumbnails.asp?m=Spode&p=Camilla
ppc is becoming a serious liability, it’s one of the main excuses to take domains through udrp ( sometimes even by manipulating results ).
After a few years searching for a solution I think I developed the right strategy and will implement it in 2016, currently doing further tests.
A very pool, uneducated decision by three people who do not seem to understand the basics of a domain name.
This domain name is a common first name too.
The decision will be overturned if there is an appeal process.
Their mindset actually means buying any domain is a bad decision. Sometimes people who make decisions need to learn the very basics of business and “good” intent.
Manipulation of the UDRP procedure inexcusable. But if the defendant had taken down the links they would have not given the panel fodder. Therein lies the problem. Give the panel an inch and in this case they take a mile. The plaintiff seems to have a point and won.
Sorry guys. Serious problems exist in UDRP but I can’t say, considering the links, that this was a bad decision.
BTW, I am not an attorney but have won UDRPs defending my domains. Please don’t get mad at me. I am just saying what I consider to be the obvious. I am not saying UDRP procedures were followed.
PS..There is NO way you can anticipate TM registrations and the registrant is not required to notify domain name holders. I have seen this manipulation before and they plaintiff always looses in the ones I read. I have one domain name registered in 1997 and someone trademarked it in 2002. They are not using the name they trademarked. They have always used a different name. Go figure.
The decision is dated November 30, 2015. There is a 10 day window to appeal the UDRP decision to federal court under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). I hope the attorneys for Mrs. Jello, LLC challenged the decision within the prescribed time period. Litigation in federal court is necessary to overturn bad UDRP decisions.
Pathetic. Reform cannot be coming soon enough. Is it painfully obvious that the entire UDRP WIPO process seems to have been taken over by the crooked good ‘ol boy wise guy network?
Wise Guy 3: Dear Wise Guy Network, Who would like to help me steal some property this month? I’ll give you more than just crumbs to hijack a generic domain name our client doesn’t want to buy.
Wise Guy 1: I’ll do it! Give me $1k and and that guy $500 and I’ll make sure you get that $15k domain for free!!!!
Wise Guy 2: Ok, I’ll send a few emails for $500, sounds reasonable.
Wise Guy 3: Sounds great guys!, I’ll put my team of wise guys on it now and give Wise Guy 2 the documents by Friday.
Wise Guy 1: Be sure to inform the registrar that we are about to steal this asset and to make sure their finest team of wise guys fields all emails regarding this matter. Remember to consult the Wise Guy Rolodex as to who is in the family at each registrar.
Wise Guy 2: 10-4
Wise Guy 3: What if the respondent files a Reverse Domain Hijacking in Federal Court once we steal the generic domain name?
Wise Guy 1: My friend, I’ve been aiding and abetting domain reverse hijackings for years. The chances are very small. And if that happens, we have a Wise Guy Rolodex for that too.
As a victim of such an ordeal, I am in the midst of recovering damages and a generic domain name not all that different then this one, though the domain was not parked while in my possession.
Crowd funding? You all may be on to something…
The corruption must be exposed and an ethical precedent must be established. (And all the wise guys need to be eradicated from any and all arbitration panels)
*than
Truly disgusting. These three thugs must be idiots.
No not idiots, just biased panelists “USING” the UDRP in the corrupt twisted way that it now seems to be. The UDRP bears no resemblance to its intentions .I reckon there are decisions now in UDRP to meet each and every permutation of argument. I would be very interested to see ,when presented with completely opposing UDRP decisions in support of A Complainant and A Respondent which way Panelists have/would rule ?. That is why I question the purpose of building up an archive of Decisions by WIPO et al . It is NOT exactly “case law” and WHY should one deisions take precedence over another ?. Something is not right with the use of such decisions .If they were decisions had gone up to Court and overturned UDRP then surely they are more relevant to being used in UDRP ??
The Panel must have been watching Minority Report on repeat and bought into the whole future crime thing. Message to Panel. It was movie, it wasn’t really real. : )
I was also hit by a Clothing company a couple of years ago. And despite I won the decision by my own means (I responded myself), I would not face another URDP without legal advise for my premium domains. I would recommend the heirs to appeal in the jurisdiction of the domain address they had registered. A civil lawsuit might revert the domain back to the previous owner. Also, we have to be united as domainer community, so far I have won one URDP and lost one more, breaking even.
On a second read: “…The fact that the Respondent has taken no efforts, once the Complainant put it on notice of its trademark rights, to remove the links to the Complainant’s products, is probative that at the time of registration the Respondent was prepared to disregard any rights …”
Complainant claims the respondents were using the Clothing name is bad faith, and not removing links to the complaining brand. Uffff, that is for the respondent the third strike. The first two strikes are by default in an URDP case when the complaining company files the URDP arguing TM infrigements, the third option is the only hope for respondents, but the previous owners decided to ignore the complains and TM infringement. Now the decision is not “horrible”, but simply “arguable”.
That might not be what the panel meant. The context in the case is that the Complainant eventually got trademark rights, which would be considered “put on notice”. It’s not clear if the Complainant actually reached out to Mrs Jello LLC about the issue before filing the UDRP.
WIPO needs to make all the elements in this case PUBLIC.
If they don’t want, ICANN must force them to do so.
We all deserve to know why this stupid decision was rendered.
The links should have been removed period. You cant expect to hold onto a domain name and advertise the trademark holders name on your website..Really its just common sense.
Finally the “judges” should be judged,… respectively… with full legal and financial consequences for stupid (only stupid or even deceit???) decisions
Was this UDRP panel seconded from FIFA?
Does ICANN have no process whereby their panels are held accountable for making decisions that don’t conform to ICANN rules? Does nobody systematically judge the judges? That’s a troubling system.
Besides WIPO, you should ask that same question of the other body National Arbitration Forum (NAF) currently being sued for the decision by their panelist Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson.
https://domainnamewire.com/2015/12/07/naf-lawsuit/
NAF say on their website:
The dispute resolution professionals who make up Forum Panels are seasoned attorneys and former judges who subscribe to the highest standards of professional conduct and follow explicit rules to ensure that parties’ rights are protected and ethical principles are upheld.
ICANN – WAKE UP!
Why do we not feel totally reassured by this NAF statement?
“Judges who subscribe to the highest standards of professional conduct and follow explicit rules to ensure that parties’ rights are protected and ethical principles are upheld.” Yeah right!!!!!!!!!
So, without prejudging the outcome of this court case, if in the event of NAF losing this case, will NAF then remove this wording from their website. Also, in the event of NAF losing this case, will they strike off panelist Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson and make a public statement?
ICANN where are you on all this? Are you asleep or are you probably too busy making arrangements for your next conference in some exotic location.
In fact, when was the last time ICANN devoted any significant amount of conference time to the injustices of the WIPO & NAF decisions?
ICANN Conference, or should that read ICANN Junket.
ICANN’s cash registers keep ringing, funded by a fee for every domain name registered . This vast revenue stream is supplemented with the hundreds upon hundreds of new gtlds, and probably more in the future, each with a $185,000 application fee, many of which are going nowhere, but which seems to occupy most of ICANN’s time. Clearly no time to debate UDRP injustices then.
Now which international destination can we plan the next ICANN conference in?
ICANN merely accredits WIPO and other UDRP providers. It has no contractual agreement with any of them, exercises no visible oversight, and takes little or any responsibility for the quality of their decisions, or lack thereof.
ICA has been advocating for years that ICANN establish and enter into a standard agreement with all providers that would set clear standards and escalating disciplinary measures if complaints were validated. Several years ago we convinced the Business Constituency to also take a position in favor of standard agreements.
UDRP review will finally be on ICANN’s agenda over the next several years, and ICA will push hard for substantial and meaningful reforms.
Could we not have an organization for domainers? Where, say each member pays $50/ year and the org would fight tooth and nail for its members and for domainers rights? Collectively we could have the power. Pardon my naïveté, but does something like this exist? What am I missing?
@Wrolie–are you seriously unaware of the existence of the Internet Commerce Association? It was founded in September 2006 and has been advocating for domainers and the companies that serve them ever since. Andrew just published ICA’s statement on this egregious UDRP decision.
Mrs Jello filed a lawsuit to block the transfer and seek damages for reverse domain name hijacking https://domainnamewire.com/2015/12/24/mrs-jello-sues-to-block-camilla-com-transfer/
It seems like the panel is trying to halt or stop cybersquatters, but this isn’t the way to go about it. Using their logic, all I would need to do is register a company named after the domain name I want to have, then raise a case that I should be able to have it.
Some call it cybersquatting, some call it domain speculation. I just don’t see how you can take something from someone who clearly owns it. Just not right.
The UDRP was vacated after a lawsuit was filed in NJ, USA, on 18 Dec 2015; case dismissed 8 Jan 2016 (or 1st August 2016?) as both parties had come to an agreed settlement. Sale price still unpublished. The Aussies have the domain. More details at: https://domainnamewire.com/2015/12/24/mrs-jello-sues-to-block-camilla-com-transfer/#comment-2257206