A UDRP panelist just ordered a non-profit’s domain name to be transferred in a poorly reasoned decision.
I’m shocked by a UDRP decision handed down by National Arbitration Forum panelist Darryl Wilson this week. It seems that Wilson got the case wrong, and this will deprive a non-profit of its active website.
Investigative Network, Inc. of Arizona filed the UDRP against Investigative News Network of Texas. The Complainant uses the domain name InvestigativeNetwork.com, and the Respondent uses the domain at issue, InvestigativeNetwork.org.
There may well be a legitimate trademark dispute between these entities. Maybe. The Complainant offers investigative services for law firms. The respondent is a non-profit journalism organization made up of investigative journalists. It describes itself as:
Investigative Network News & Documentaries, Inc. (“Investigative Network”) is the first of its kind nonprofit journalism organization to exclusively produce video & film based investigative content by experienced award-winning broadcast investigative journalists dedicated to uncovering and exposing abuses of power, corruption, betrayal of public trust by powerful elected officials and public and private institutions.
The two groups use a similar name and they investigate, although for very different purposes.
But one thing is clear: this is not a case of clear cut cybersquatting for which the UDRP was created.
I’m baffled by Wilson’s decision.
It’s clear that the Respondent has Rights or Legitimate Interests in the domain. Yet Wilson wrote:
The Panel here notes the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Brian Collister / Investigative News Network” and no information in the record indicates that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Nor does Respondent’s submission in this matter indicate any authorization was ever granted. The Panel here finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the investigativenetwork.org domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Wait. What? The non-profit’s name in Whois is literally “Investigative News Network” and it’s using the domain InvestigativeNetwork.org.
Wilson also determined the domain was Registered and Used in Bad Faith:
Although one may conclude that providing nonprofit information and educational services indicate good faith to some degree, those actions alone will not normally suffice to justify the identical registration of an established trademark and domain name of an entity that provides the same or similar services.
The net-net of this decision is that a non-profit is about to lose its domain name unless it files a lawsuit. This seems egregious.
Charles says
>>>or was commonly known by
>>>the disputed domain name.
The feds seem to know them by that name:
A recognized 501(c)(3) corporation with the IRS Tax ID # 83-1079958
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/allSearch.do?ein1=83-1079958
independent investigative network
EIN: 83-1079958 | austin, TX, United States
Given InvestigativeNetwork.com lists domain trademarks and acquisitions are part of their business, I’d say their rep may have just taken a hit …. Never a good idea to eat your our own customers.
Mike says
Utterly ridiculous. So they are effectively saying that the Complainant has a WORLD monopoly and no one else can hold a domain name with those 2 generic words. NUTS !
This is the CV of the Panelist Darryl C Wilson
https://www.stetson.edu/law/faculty/wilson-darryl-c/
John says
Without looking at anything, I’m just going to guess. So, how about this possibility…
The respondent is an independent media organization, and the panelist simply doesn’t like what they are all about and ruled against them solely because of that regardless of the appearance of making some kind of reasoned decision (which are pretty bad to begin with)?
Yes, no, maybe?
Normally I would take a closer look, but no time now.
John says
i.e., the “appearance[s]” are “pretty bad to begin with”; had edited from plural to singular.
Andrew Allemann says
Seems highly unlikely.
John says
I have time to comment on a little break here, but I still don’t have time to look closely enough at respondent to form an opinion. But I will say this:
It would not surprise me if you are not really aware of the extent to which censorship and suppression is really going on, and the willingness to engage in and support that among many people, and the widespread forms of bias that goes along with it. You are doubtless familiar with accusations about such things being done against “conservative” content. It wouldn’t even surprise if you personally don’t even believe that’s true. It is, however, but you may not be aware that such things are going on against far more than conservatives and conservative content.
So the bottom line is that if they are the kind of independent media organization that is oriented toward doing “real journalism,” exposing wrong, revealing truth, opposing war and various forms of government and mainstream media propaganda, etc. – then it is definitely not “highly unlikely” that a panelist could be full of the kinds of biases and prejudice that could lead to a crooked ruling if he took the time to look at respondent’s content and found it included things or a viewpoint he didn’t like.
After all, what other sensible explanations are there? That he’s just dumb? Not fit for the job? Bias is as good a possible guess as any for a ruling like this, unless respondent’s content is just a lot of genuinely neutral nothing burgers.
JZ says
always pay for a 3 person panel so hopefully one idiot won’t ruin it. unless you get 3 idiots..