Re: [ga-udrp] FW: Non-member submission from ["Rothnie, Warwick" <WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>]

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

Warwick and all,

Rothnie, Warwick wrote:

> Mallesons Stephen Jaques
> Confidential communication
>
> The person currently identifying himself as NameCritic said:
>
> >Yes I CAN say Registrants arew being denied equal legal representation
> and
> >treatment. To not see that is to bury your head in the sand. All one
> has to
> >do is read the cases and how they were decided and the summaries and
> >conclusions to see that TM Protection is seriously stretched into
> something
> >much more than the courts have allowed in the past and way beyond the
> >protection the USPTO gives to them.
>
> Which cases are you specifically concerned about and what proportion of
> the decisions do they constitute?  For example, there are frequent
> references by critics of the UDRP to the end of the world aka as
> barcelona.com, but things would seem to have moved along quite a long
> way in brisbanecity.com and brisbane.com.

  Thank you for sharing your thoughts (Although seemingly twisted)
with us Warwick.  However you did provide a brief reference
(Barcelona.com) which was an very questionable decision
once all of the facts are reviewed.  Hence you question requesting
some specific references in this instance are not needed.  Thank
you!  >;)

  Has the Bardelona.com situation been reviewed and properly reversed?
To my knowledge, no.  Therefore it seems that Your assertion of
"things would seem to have moved along quite a long way in
brisbanecity.com and brisbane.com" don't seem to be adequate
to already damaged registrants such was the barcelona.com
case...

>
>
> Does this stretching "into much more" take into account what the courts
> in the USA have been doing under the anti-cybersquatting protection act
> or is that, for some reason I have missed, not a "legitimate" law in the
> USA?

  No likely not but it should.  However as the Anti-cypersquatting Act
is US law, redress would need to take a different path for such a
LAW.

>
>
> In short what is it that is quacking that you can hear?

  Well how about just one duck for the purposes of this post,
Barcelona.com?  >;)

>
>
> Warwick A Rothnie
> Partner
> Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
> Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
> Fax (61 3) 9643 5999
>
> TMs have classifications. Domain names do not. A TM does NOT give
> someone
> all rights to a particular string of letters. It only protects that
> string
> in it's use in commerce in the classification for which it was filed.
> UDRP
> actions have consistantly ignored this fact and stolen domain names from
> Registrants. Yes I said stolen. I don't beat around the bush. If it
> looks
> like a duck and walks like a duck . . .
>
> Domain Names are taken that HAVE NOT been used in commerce at all and
> TMs
> have been given victories based on dilution of a famous mark when the
> marks
> would never be considered famous in a court of law.
>
> Respondants have been turned down for court appeals of the UDRP
> decisions in
> some cases while I have never heard of the same happening to a
> Complainant.
> I am already looking an example so don't bother asking. When I find it
> I'll
> post it. There was one in recent news so it shouldn't be difficult to
> find.
>
> In one of the Arbitration Services I have heard they will, for and extra
> $250 accept additional filings from a Complainant after both sides have
> been
> heard.
>
> The Complainant can Forum Shop. There is NO appeals process. There is no
> committee to oversee the actions of the arbitrators. 84% Victory rate
> for
> Complainants overall. Using NO use of a domain name as Bad Faith and
> finding
> that a TM was infringed upon. With NO commercial use. Give me a break
> here.
>
> Spin on my good man.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rothnie, Warwick" <Warwick.Rothnie@msj.com.au>
> To: <ga-udrp@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 4:40 PM
> Subject: [ga-udrp] FW: Non-member submission from ["Rothnie, Warwick"
> <WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>]
>
> > Mallesons Stephen Jaques
> > Confidential communication
> >
> > Erik Dierker said:
> > >
> > > > > > I for one like existing laws
> > > > > >and would like to see them enforced and if an UDRP did this I
> > would
> > > be
> > > > > all for
> > > > > >it, otherwise it looks like a mechanism for circumvention of
> > > Sovereign
> > > > > and
> > > > > >legitmate laws.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since the UDRP expressly contemplates parties pursuing their
> > rights
> > > on
> > > > > the courts, however, courts will not consider that the
> sovereignty
> > > of
> > > > > the laws has been circumvented.  That is the point of allowing
> > > parties
> > > > > to resort to the courts.  Many arbitration agreements, which are
> > > upheld
> > > > > by the courts, go even further than the UDRP and preclude court
> > > action
> > > > > over factual findings.
> > > > >
> > > > > Warwick A Rothnie
> > > > > Partner
> > > > > Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
> > > > > Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
> > > > > Fax (61 3) 9643 5999
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >I am sorry to have confused you but I think we are talking apples
> and
> > > oranges
> > > >here.  If I sign a valid arbitration agreement with you and it
> states
> > > that the
> > > >exixting Trademark Law will govern on any issue of my right to a
> name
> > > as opposed
> > > >to someone elses, and we arbitrate and the arbitrators missapply
> that
> > > existing
> > > >Trademark Law on a consistent and reliable manner to the benefit of
> > one
> > > interest
> > > >group that is in violation of the sovereign laws of the State.  Add
> > to
> > > that
> > > >Monopoly, add to that adhesion contracts add to that Violations of
> > the
> > > MOU with
> > > >the DoC.
> > >
> > > >So they have done an end run and circumvented the laws. Notice I
> used
> > > the term
> > > >circumvention and not violation before. But, add all this to ICANN
> > now
> > > getting
> > > >into the business of telling countries they have to follow ICANNs
> > UDRP
> > > and you
> > > >have a flat out violation of law as established by treaty.
> > >
> > But surely that is just like any arbitrator making a mistake (assuming
> > there be one) and the aggrieved party getting an appropriate court to
> > review and, if necessary, rectify.  The UDRP provides that safety
> valve
> > in spades and in the USA (home of plaintiffs' lawyers and contingency
> > fees), you could hardly claim that meritorious registrants are being
> > shut out of the legal system.
> >
> > Warwick A Rothnie
> > Partner
> > Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
> > Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
> > Fax (61 3) 9643 5999
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-udrp@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-udrp@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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-udrp@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html