Panelist was attorney for complainant found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.
What do you call it when a World Intellectual Property Organization UDRP panelist files a UDRP on behalf of a client and it results in a reverse domain name hijacking finding?
I’m not sure, but I bet many readers can come up with a term for this.
Charne Le Roux is a panelist for WIPO. She recently acted as attorney for Nedbank Limited of South Africa in its UDRP case over GreenTrust.com.
That’s a bit of a conflict. But it’s even worse when you consider that Nedbank was found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in the case!
Read that again: a WIPO panelist represented a client in a UDRP that resulted in an RDNH finding.
And this wasn’t one of those simple “the domain was registered before the trademark” cases. Among the reasons for the RDNH finding were that the complaint misrepresented the number of adverse UDRP decisions against the respondent.
The original complaint said that the domain owner had 8 UDRP losses. Despite noting that the complete list was attached to the complaint, it was left off.
The number should have been 3 instead of 8. (The panel also noted that they were marginal decisions.)
The Panel finds the Complainant’s original case in this regard unsatisfactory and notes that no explanation has been provided as to how the double mistake (as to both the number of previous cases, and the content of the exhibited schedule) occurred, nor has any apology been offered, beyond an acceptance in the Supplemental Filing that the error was “regrettable”.
Despite determining that Le Roux and her client filed the case in abuse of the policy, the final decision only mentions her firm (Adams & Adams) and not her name. Many decisions state both the attorney name and the firm.
Perhaps her colleague panelists wanted to keep her name out of the record?
John Berryhill represented the domain name owner.
Mike G says
“Karma” , “Justice” ?
George Kirikos says
She’s also a member of the ICANN PDP working group reviewing the UDRP and other rights protection mechanisms:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Charne+Le+Roux+SOI
as well as a member of the Intellectual Property Constituency.
Nat Cohen says
Is WIPO going to continue its “accredit and forget it” policy? WIPO accredits panelists to essentially lifetime appointments and apparently does not review panelists’ decisions for fidelity to the UDRP.
What does it say about the integrity of WIPO’s implementation of the UDRP if it appoints Ms. Le Roux to any future UDRP panels? Any decision Ms. Le Roux renders in the future will be suspect now that she has been found to have such disregard for the Policy that she filed an abusive complaint that had “no reasonable prospects of success”.
Kudos to panelists Gardner, Willoughby and Lyon for not showing excessive deference to a fellow panelist and for making the deserved finding of RDNH.
Yorrick says
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/something_is_rotten_in_the_state_of_Denmark
Etoile says
Yes. Ms. Charne Le Roux filed an abusive complaint that had “no reasonable prospects of success”. Her client Nedbank Limited is now known as a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker. Maybe they aren’t too bothered.
Presumably Ms. Charne Le Roux picked up her fees, so all’s well then. American Express? That’ll do nicely!
Will anything happen to change this in WIPOworld?
Sadly, probably not.
Khalid says
History repeats itself. Adams & Adams Attorneys represent complainant in no-hoper UDRP case.
In the UDRP case re greentrust.com, the complainant was represented by Adams & Adams. We now know more specifically that they were represented by Ms. Charne Le Roux (herself a UDRP panelist) of Adams & Adams.
This no hope of success case was denied.
We’ve seen the name “Adams & Adams” before.
In the UDRP case re domain name sunbet.com Adams & Adams represented the complainant
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2014-1190
The panelists said “On one view, this Complaint could be said to have been flawed from the outset. How could it have been launched with any hope of success?”
The case was denied.