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

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

Chris and all,

  Thank you Chris for providing Warwick and the rest of us with these
examples and references.  However it is incumbent on the the requester
to do his/her own "Homework", not you do it for him/her.

NameCritic wrote:

> http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/study.html
>
> The cases involved with this study. http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/list.html
>
> "The fact that negotiations between the parties for the sale of the domain
> name have occurred does not necessarily prove that the original registration
> was made primarily for the purpose of selling to the complainant. The Policy
> does not impose a blanket prohibition on selling domain names." David
> Williams, QC, Panelist in SOUTHBANK v. Media Street, WIPO Case No.
> D2001-0294 (Apr. 11, 2001), para. 6.15; quoting from Gordon Sumner, p/k/a
> Sting v. Michael Urvan, WIPO Case No. D2000-0596 (July 24, 2000).
>
> *Yet in another case. "Respondent's comments to Complainant in an e-mail
> "not to contact him with an offer for the domain name . . . unless the offer
> reflects appropriate market value" was taken to suggest bad faith.  Transfer
> ordered."
>
> *And just to show that the UDRP is not uniform in any way.
> http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/97182.htm
>
> BroadcastAmerica.com, Inc. v. Cynthia Quo, WIPO Case No. DTV2000-0001 (Oct.
> 4, 2000).  First UDRP case decided for the .tv TLD.  Complainant was an
> Internet broadcast service operating BroadcastAmerica.com.  The complainant
> did not have a trademark registered with the USPTO.  First Respondent
> contacted Complainant with offer to sell for $1500, after cease & desist
> letter sent, Respondent stated the name would be placed up for auction at
> $20,000. Name was later sold to second respondent for $500.
> Panel determined that "Complainant presented substantial evidence that it
> has acquired common law service mark rights in 'BroadcastAmerica.com' . . .
> based on a comparison of the overall impression that 'BroadcastAmerica.TV'
> as a domain name and 'BroadcastAmerica.com' as a service mark (and domain
> name) are likely to make on users of the Internet, the Panel determines that
> the domain name 'BroadcastAmerica.tv' is confusingly similar."
>
> *So now if you own a dot com I guess you are entitled to that name under all
> future TLDs.
>
> Modern Times Group (MTG) AB v. Stefan Häge, Kriströms Advokatbyrå AB, WIPO
> Case No. DTV2000-0004 (Jan. 24, 2001).  Complainant had several European and
> Scandinavian trademarks for EVERYDAY, had been used with the Internet since
> 1994 and a portal since 1999.  Complainant sent a cease and desist, and
> originial registrant assigned the name to the respondent the next day.  The
> Panel stated that "The ccTLD.tv is, by its nature, natural to use all over
> the world. For many Internet users it would seem to be a gtld. It is
> therefore important that MTG can use this domain as well, especially in
> order to avoid confusion amongst Everyday.com's one million members."
> Transfer ordered.
>
> *Again look out dot biz registrants. I have a lot of dot coms up as
> websites. I guess the matching dot biz names automatically belong to me too.
>
> *Now we go back the other way.
>
> Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Elad Cohen, WIPO Case No. DTV2000-0006 (Jan.
> 22, 2001).  Complainant has operated a Canadian cable channel TSTV (Toronto
> Star Television) since 1998.  Complainant began to webcast TSTV at TSTV.ca
> and TorontoStar.com in 2000.  Respondent registered TSTV.tv to offer
> "services to the transsexual and transvestite community."  Although TSTV and
> TSTV.tv were identical, the Panel found that the respondent had legitimate
> use of the domain name in connection with services for the transvestite
> community.
>
> *And in a different case . . .
>
> Toronto Star Newspapers Limited v. Capital Networks Limited, DTV2001-0002
> (Mar. 21, 2001).  Toronto Star filed complaint on January 22, 2001, for the
> domain name TorontoStar.tv.  Complainant sent a cease and desist on October
> 26, 2000.  Respondent claimed to be a media enterprise, focusing on North
> American city names with the word "star" attached.  No examples of other
> city name domains were provided.  The domain name was found to be identical
> to the Complainant's mark.
> The Panel declined to resolve the dispute, saying "[i]t may be that the
> subject domain name violates the intellectual property rights of the
> Complainant, but that is not a matter to be resolved in this domain name
> dispute process. The focus of this proceeding is narrow and specific."
> Further, "[t]he Respondent's evidence is not strong, but the Complaint has
> the burden of establishing a lack of legitimate interest. This, it has not
> done."
>
> Again, Toronto Star failed to win a UDRP proceeding.  *This decision may
> have arrived at a different result had it been filed with the NAF or a
> different Panel.  It is also unclear whether Complainant's counsel erred
> with both UDRP cases.  Respondent wins.
>
> eMedicine.com v. Sjafy Lim, WIPO Case No. DTV2001-0003 (Apr. 5, 2001).
> Complainant began using EMEDICINE trademark in 1997, and obtained US
> trademark registrations in 1998 and 2000.  Respondent was an accountant in
> California and claimed to have registered eMedicine.tv for her husband's
> medical clinic.  In September 2000, Complainant wrote to Respondent,
> offering $200 for the domain name.  Respondent replied that the name was for
> her husband's clinic, but offered $11,000 for the domain name.  The case
> turns on the issue of bad faith.  The name was found to be identical, and
> Respondent's lack of use for a bona fine offering of services did not
> support rights or legitimate interest in the domain.  The same evidence
> denied by the Panel in showing a legitimate interest was used to show that
> the name had not been registered in bad faith.
> "There is no evidence here that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of
> speculative domain name registration or that her claimed reason for
> registering the mark is a sham. The parties do not appear to be competitors.
> Further, it does not appear that Respondent deliberately selected the Domain
> Name to attract Internet users to its site based on confusion with
> Complainant's mark. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record to show any
> public use or awareness of Complainant's mark, and it is in any event
> unlikely that Respondent would reap any benefit from misleading
> Complainant's potential customers to a web site for a geographically remote
> medical clinic."
>
> Bad faith could have been found based on the Respondent's offer of $11,000
> for the domain name.  However, the Panel found that "the mere fact that a
> party offers to sell a Domain Name for a premium is not conclusive proof of
> bad faith. The specific circumstances of the offer must be considered."
> Further, "[g]iven that Respondent demonstrated a bona fide intent to use the
> Domain Name for a legitimate, non-infringing purpose, I find that his offer
> to surrender his rights in the domain name for a premium does not establish
> bad faith use and registration."  Complaint denied.
>
> *If the Panel determined that the Respondent had demonstrated a "legitimate,
> non-infringing purpose", then why does this not show rights or legitimate
> interest under Paragraph 4(a)(ii)?  I am confused by the reasoning applied
> by the panel but not the result.  The panel should have stated that the
> Respondent had a legitimate interest to the name.
>
> Bloomberg L.P. v. Martin Aronsky, NAF Case FA96681 (Apr. 11, 2001).
> Complainant discovered Bloombergradio.tv and TheBloomberg.tv for sale on
> Afternic.com.  A cease and desist was sent to Afternic.  Respondent was
> offering for sale domain names with the famous marks of others.  Respondent
> claimed that "just acquiring a domain name for re-selling does not
> consititute bad faith", and Complainant's offer of $1000 for transfer of the
> domain name "concedes that there is an open trade value to the name."
> As to the first issue, whether the domain names were identical or
> confusingly similar, the Panel found the "addition of an ordinary
> descriptive word or letters such as "tv" to a famous mark does not make the
> domain name dissimilar."  The only use shown by the Respondent was to offer
> the names for sale on Afternic.  "It is obvious that Respondent is trying to
> sell the domain names to anyone who will buy them so no non-commercial use
> theory can be considered."  Complainant's marks had not become generic, and
> Respondent was not commonly known by he domain names.  Panel found no rights
> or legitimate interests in the domain names.
>
> In determining the third element of the UDRP, the Panel found "[o]ffering
> domain names for sale at an auction site is evidence of bad faith
> registration and use.  See Wrenchead.com, Inc. v. Hammersla, WIPO Case No.
> D2000-1222 (Dec. 12, 2000) that was also an "Afternic.com" auction sale.
> See also Gateway, Inc. v. David Ayers, WIPO Case No. D2000-0106 (Apr. 27,
> 2000), Chase Manhattan Corp. v. Jehovah Technologies PTE Ltd., WIPO Case No.
> D2000-0388 (July 5, 2000)."  The domain names were available under the
> "Financial Services and Communications" section, and it was clear that the
> Respondent knew of the Complainant's rights in the BLOOMBERG mark and was
> attempting to profit from it.  Transfer ordered.
>
> *Landmark case.  It remains to be seen on how many trademark holders will
> look to this decision in future cases.  However, with the number of domain
> names containing famous marks available on auction sites, this case should
> prove to be very helpful for trademark holders.
>
> *It will be interesting to see how many complaints are filed with WIPO and
> the National Arbitration Forum over .tv domain names.  So far, NAF decisions
> have resulted in clear wins in favor of trademark holders.  Consider the
> names at issue in those cases: Best Western, Bloomberg, Enron, Hollywood
> Network, and Premiere.  Four or five of those marks are recognizable as
> famous or well-known.  Of the WIPO decisions, arguably NASDAQ and Clairol
> are the only famous marks of the group.  Trademark holders should weigh
> carefully the decision to file a UDRP case.  The particular arbitration
> forum used should also be a factor.  It may appear that the NAF has been the
> more favorable forum, but perhaps the cases brought before the NAF have been
> reasonably clear examples of bad faith registration.  Five cases are still
> pending before WIPO arbitrators, and those cases could arrive at different
> results.  Hopefully this summary will assist with both sides of the UDRP
> issue.
>
> COMSAT Corporation v. TELE Satellite, WIPO Case No. DTV2001-0011 (June 7,
> 2001).  Complainant filed the UDRP proceeding April 12, 2001 against German
> Respondent TELE Satellite over the domain name COMSAT.TV.  No response was
> filed by TELE Satellite.  COMSAT (Communications Satellite Corporation) was
> created by Congressional statute in 1962 to "design, develop, and implement
> a worldwide satellite telecommunications system."  The COMSAT trademark was
> registered in 1964, and the Panelist considered the mark to be famous in the
> field of satellite communications.  COMSAT.TV was registered by the
> Respondent July 10, 2000, with content resolving to sat-news.com.  Panelist
> Dan Hunter stated "Respondent is using COMSAT.TV solely to lure those who
> are looking for Complainant to its site when a person types in Complainant's
> mark and name.  This use is in bad faith, and it is an attempt to trade off
> the enormous goodwill and fame attendant the COMSAT mark in the satellite
> field."
>
> *Yet in the case of BruceSpringsteen.com that Bruce didn't get his domain
> name because the Respondant was using the name to point to a celebrity
> website. Very Uniform of them don't you think?
>
> * It's pretty much a given that the UDRP will NOT be internationally
> recognized no matter how much ICANN and WIPO contend they are the One True
> Authorities in their respective services.
> http://www.udrplaw.net/cctldDisputes.htm
>
> * And if you agree with this decision there is no help for you at all. The
> word Traditions is a generic word. No website is not a TM infringement.
> http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/94388.htm
>
> * Particularly interesting quote here by the Panelist "In seeking to resolve
> the conflicting interpretations which have been offered for Mr. McDiffett's
> behaviour, certain factors must be kept in mind. There is no obligation on a
> domain name registrant to use it for any purpose, commercial or otherwise.
> Nor in general is there any obligation not to transfer it to any other
> person for a sum exceeding the costs of obtaining and maintaining it. If
> this is what the Complainant means by "trafficking" its objection is too
> wide" http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0193.html
>
> *And I find it difficult to see how a company can feature the website in
> their magazine more than once then 4 years later decide the domain name was
> infringing on their rights.
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0222.html
>
> *AOL wins again. They seem to own the letters ICQ no matter what. You don't
> have to use them in commerce in competition with them or anything. They just
> simply get to reduce our alphabet by three letters even if you increase the
> string to a 4th or 5th or 6th letter. I could start a website with MICQ.com
> as "More Internet Cash Quickly" but AOL would get the domain name because
> anything ICQ is an infringement.
> http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/94420.htm
>
> *This is a book of the bible. That any entity would be granted a TM on a
> name they stole from the bible is first of all ridiculous. Secondly this
> case goes to show how much weight is placed on other unrelated domain names
> someone owns. That should not even be considered let alone be evidence of
> anything at all.  Also again Arbitrators can't make up their mind about
> whether or not trying to sell a domain name is evidence of bad faith.
>
> I can get you plenty more. J. Crew vs Crew.com is good. A company in
> California that got a TM for Beverages & More! but only because of the
> ampersand and the exclamation point. They could not get a TM without them
> because the words are descriptive and generic, therefore the TM was only
> exactly as you see written here. Yet they won the domain name
> BeveragesAndMore.com. Their argument was that although the ampersand and
> exclamation point were how they got their TM, that since the punctuation
> marks were not usable in domain names that this domain name should belong to
> them. Yes Barcelona .com. Madonna.com. Maybe Nissan.com.
>
> It can go on and on. The bottom line is that there has been NO uniformity in
> the Uniform Dispute resolution Policy at all. By allowing TM Holders to shop
> for the best forum to decide the case and the fact that Arbitration Services
> must be friendly to TM Holders to attract business, there is no possible way
> this can be construed as a fair process. We cannot document the number of
> domain names that have been given up and transferrred due to the letters IP
> Lawyers send out regularly to threaten people. They do it simply to see if
> they will give up the name. They threaten huge lawsuits and indicate huge
> legal defense expenditures, etc. There is no defense for this for
> individuals and smaller companies.
>
> Many IP Interests came to the party late. Thanks to the UDRP, WIPO, ACPA,
> and ICANN they can just steal what they did not have the foresight to get
> first. Critics can say all they want that this is a fair system, but they
> know it is not. IP Lawyers don't get paid as well to defend domain name
> owners in general as they do for stealing domain names for large
> corporations. Many law websites give the advice freely. How to get someone
> to give you the domain name your client wants is basically the message.
>
> With all the IP interests involved in ICANN, it's no wonder an Individual's
> Constituency and a Domain Name Owner's Constituency is not approved. They
> say it is unnecessary. It's more that they want to continue with this
> travesty called the UDRP and don't want a bunch of "ordinary" people
> objecting to what they consider their right. Domain Names were not intended
> to match up to TMs. If they were the USPTO would be registering domain
> names.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rothnie, Warwick" <Warwick.Rothnie@msj.com.au>
> To: "NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
> Cc: <ga-udrp@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 11:38 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga-udrp] FW: Non-member submission from ["Rothnie, Warwick"
> <WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>]
>
> > Mallesons Stephen Jaques
> > Confidential communication
> >
> > Apparently, there is a duck in your questions but it seems to be a verb
> > and not a noun: no attempt to identify particular cases or what
> > proportion the disputed cases make up of the whole.
> >
> > Warwick A Rothnie
> > Partner
> > Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
> > Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
> > Fax (61 3) 9643 5999
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NameCritic [mailto:watch-dog@inreach.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 4 July 2001 4:06 PM
> > To: Rothnie, Warwick
> > Cc: ga-udrp@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga-udrp] FW: Non-member submission from ["Rothnie,
> > Warwick" <WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>]
> >
> >
> > I see that you missed some of the points made below. By rereading the
> > post
> > in it's entirety I think you may have more to respond to since you
> > stated
> > that  "you could hardly claim that meritorious registrants are being
> > shut
> > out of the legal system."
> >
> > Specific points to clarify;
> >
> > 1. If an Arbitration Service is allowing filings beyond those specified
> > by
> > the UDRP and WIPO's Guidelines for an additional fee from Complainants,
> > is
> > that an even system?
> >
> > 2. If the Complainant is allowed to Forum Shop, is that a fair system?
> >
> > 3. If the system allows for harassing complaints where Company A with a
> > great legal staff and a lot of bucks wants a domain name that Company or
> > Individual B has and files UDRP Actions and/or Lawsuits knowing that the
> > Respondant does not have enough money to defend the Domain Name, is that
> > a
> > fair system?
> >
> > 4. Do you believe under a "Fair" Arbitration system that 84% of cases
> > being
> > found for the Complainant is normal?
> >
> > 5. How can Person A. infringe upon Comapny B's TM if the domain name has
> > never been used in commerce?
> >
> > 6. Why has the Arbitration Services declared dilution as the reason for
> > infringement for Non-Famous TMs?
> >
> > 7. Why is the fact the Respondant hasn't built a website yet considered
> > proof of a bad faith registration? Where, when filing a domain name does
> > it
> > say the Registrant must EVER build a website in order to keep their
> > domain
> > name?
> >
> > 8. Why has the fact that a Respondant doesn't own a business of the same
> > name as his domain name been shown as proof of a bad faith registration?
> > Again where in the agreement with the Registrar does it say you must own
> > ANY
> > company to register a domain name? (Besides in the duplicate and
> > infringing
> > Neulevel dot biz tld)
> >
> > 9. Can you point me to the place within the law of ANY country or within
> > the
> > USPTO where it states that a TM Holder has the rights to all uses of the
> > words or letter strings they registered regardless of what
> > classification
> > they registered the TM in?
> >
> > 10. Can you point to any similar links to statements that give a TM
> > Holder
> > rights to all variations of the string they hold a TM over?
> >
> > 11. Can you show me where in the UDRP it says that a Registrar can strip
> > a
> > Respondant of their domain name and give it to a Complainant without the
> > Arbitration ever occuring at all?
> >
> > 12. Can you show me where in IP Law or the UDRP that pointing a domain
> > name
> > to a porn website is proof of no legitimate interest in the domain name?
> >
> > I am sure that it was my mistake you didn't recognize the duck. It is my
> > sincere hope that numbering the ducks will help.
> >
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rothnie, Warwick" <Warwick.Rothnie@msj.com.au>
> > To: "NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
> > Cc: <ga-udrp@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:54 PM
> > Subject: RE: [ga-udrp] FW: Non-member submission from ["Rothnie,
> > Warwick"
> > <WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>]
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > In short what is it that is quacking that you can hear?
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>
> --
> 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