RE: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
|> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 3:42 PM
|> 
|> On 13:04 28/10/01 -0800, Roeland Meyer said:
|> 
|> >It is reasonable considering the alternative legal costs, 
|> but dropping it to
|> >$25K US is also reasonable, considering that there is no 
|> set criteria. In
|> >the case of an abusive complaint, which is usually brought 
|> about by a large
|> >corp,
|> 
|> I could justify $25-30 K US, but not higher.

From a justification stand-point, any number is hard. It all seems so ...
arbitrary. This is the largest problem I have with the entire UDRP process.

|> Not all complainants will be large corps (I would like to 
|> see statistics on this) and a small player defending his  
|> trademark should not be intimidated by the size of the bond.

I am under the impression that almost every case of reverse-hijacking is
pressed by a large corp. Considering the entry criteria for pressing such a
case and it is almost inevitable. One cannot be small and broke whilst
pressing a reverse-hijacking attempt. For starters, one must have a valid
trademark, businesss mark, etc, in order to create the confusing bad-faith
criteria.

|> The basic purpose is to compensate the victim of an attempted 
|> hijacking for his cost and trouble.

That is "reverse-hijacking" and yes, we are in agreement there. However, I
point out that, were it not for the UDRP, the opportunity would not even
exist.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html