The complainant’s lawyer and one of the panelists were in the same law school class and worked at the same law firm.
Take a look at this World Intellectual Property Organization decision for the domain name ProntoPro.com.
In a 2-1 decision, the majority of the panel found that the Atlanta company that registered ProntoPro.com did not violate the UDRP because the domain owner had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
You can read the decision and I think you’ll agree with the majority of the panel that it’s far-fetched to think an Atlanta company that deals in local services was trying to attract business meant for a company in Italy (where the complainant is based).
The third panelist, Nicoletta Colombo, who was nominated by the complainant, found otherwise. Colombo said the domain owner didn’t show any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name despite operating a company in Atlanta called Pronto.
Colombo is in Italy. So your first thought might be a bit of country pride. But dig a bit deeper and it gets troubling.
The complainant’s counsel was Alessandra Ferreri. Ferreri happens to also be a WIPO panelist. She graduated from Università degli Studi in Milan in 1993 and then worked for Rapisardi Intellectual Property from 2000-2014.
Colombo also graduated from Università degli Studi in Milano in 1993. She also worked for Rapisardi Intellectual Property from 1995-2009.
So both the complainant’s counsel and the dissenting panelist are WIPO panelists. They also appear to have been in the same class at law school. They subsequently worked for the same law firm.
Does that seem troubling to you?
Its ridiculous the amount of control WIPO has over this type of asset class. To have absolutely zero government recourse against these decisions short of a federal lawsuit is troubling too.
Bad actors will take advantage of this poor structure all day long…and since their is no ability to assign damages or fines its the perfect environment for poor execution with zero accountability, which ultimately leads to corruption.
I guess this is what happens when you try and setup an decentralized internet court with zero accountability of its members.
“To have absolutely zero government recourse against these decisions short of a federal lawsuit is troubling too.”
What if the registry service for .com is ever moved outside the US since there is no longer US oversight that could prevent that? How realistic is that possibility?
Yes it is troubling. The thing is that I am sure that this happens quite a bit. Imagine if you have a Lawyer acting as Panelist and he is tasked with deciding whether a Large Corporation (from whom he may get work) OR Mr Respondent (who likely will never give him work) should win, then you can guess who human nature would make him prefer.
There is at least one documented instance of a UDRP Panelist subsequently gaining as a client in subsequent domain disputes, a Complainant in a case over which the Panelist presided.
These sorts of things do not qualify as actual “conflicts”, which is worth pointing out before the hair-splitting brigade comes along to lawyersplain it.
WIPO allowing people with zero ethics like Nicoletta Colombo to be panelists…..sounds right
I think you are really brave to make such defamatory statements by hiding yourself behind a nickname.
Pfft stupid troll can’t even troll right. Doesn’t understand the difference between defamatory statements and opinions.
Two thumbs up for Nick the Troll Hammer.
Unfortunately those kind of “conflicts” have been widespread for ages also among US attorneys and their clients … 🙂
Us attorneys and their clients? What do you mean?