[ga-tm] Re: SWIPO New Service Announcement!- We'll steal short domain name to order!

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

All GA-Tm'ers,

  Alex possed the following question in response and I responded
as follows:  (From the Domain Policy list)

ALex and all,

   It depends on who's or what definition you use.  And even then 
it depends on whom has which of these examples registered.   To me
anyway this makes the situation even more confusing.  You might 
than wish to ask the ICANN BoD or WIPO directly 
(See E-Mail addresses in cc above) when, which and who's definition 
is currently being used, and what the specific criterion are for 
that or those definitions.

Alex Kells wrote:

> On the grounds that different people could register example.com,
> example.net, example.org, example.co.uk etc etc... doesn't that
> automatically mean there are domains out there that are "confusingly
> similar"?
>
> --
> Alex Kells - Hostmaster - Frontier Internet Services Ltd
> Tel: 020 7510 4713 Fax: 020 7531 9930 http://www.frontier.net.uk
> Statements made are at all times subject to Frontier's Terms and
> Conditions of Business, which are available upon request.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM]
> Sent: 03 May 2001 12:37
> To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM
> Subject: Re: [DOMAIN-POLICY] SWIPO New Service Announcement!- We'll
> steal short domain name to order!
>
> Patrick and all,
>
>   I think the key or keys here are the same as they have always been
> for this stuff.  1.) What are the basic detailed criterion for determining
> what it "Confusingly similar" with respect to a Domain Name?  2.)
> Does "Bad Faith" have a direct correlation to "Confusingly Similar", once
> defined?
>
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 03, 2001 1:54 AM (AEST), Kent Crispin  wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 02:23:14PM -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > but why bother, the important part is the following reasoning placed
> in
> > the
> > > > decision by Sir Barker:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Sorry, that is not the important part.  The important part is the
> > > holding of bad faith.  This is a supporting condition.
> >
> > Hi Kent
> >
> > The ICANN policy requires three conditions to be satisfied.  One is that
> the
> > domain name is "identical or confusingly similar".  Another is that you
> have
> > "no rights or legitimate interests".  A third is that the domain name "has
> > been registered and is being used in bad faith".  All three conditions
> need
> > to to proved as follows:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm
> >
> > To sugest that any one of those is more important than another is to
> misread
> > the import of the policy.  Andy Gardner's point about "the important part
> of
> > the reasoning" was to argue that the complainant had not satisfied all
> three
> > requirements.
> >
> > In particular, that the complainant had NOT proved:
> >
> > Condition 1    The common law mark "BoozOnline" is "identical or
> confusingly
> > similar to the domain name "booz.com".
> >
> > Condition 2    The holder of "booz.com" had no rights or legitimate
> > interests in the domain.
> >
> > On the facts, it would seem that the holder of the common law mark
> > "BoozOnline" had no greater rights to the domain name "booz.com" than the
> > domain name holder.  As such the decision was in error notwithstanding any
> > proof of "bad faith".
> >
> > Any reasonable person will agree that with many decisions being made under
> > the UDRP, some are, or may have been, wrongly decided.  However, whenever
> a
> > particular case is put to you as an example, your argument seems to be
> > otherwise.
> >
> > Why don't you just admit that this is one such case instead of fudging and
> > dissembling with inaccuracies about the import of the ICANN policy ??
> >
> > Regards
> > Patrick Corliss
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-tm@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-tm" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html