Re: [ga-udrp] Virtual Countries v. Republic of S. Afr.

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

One does not need legal advice here and one does not have to understand
long arm statutes or in rem or in re.
A simple *diction*ary will do.  Juris is having legal right and
diction is the proper use of words. Quite unsophisticated and brilliant
in its simplicity, and never has a ruling had a better truth. In this type
of matter the court lacks the legal right over these words.  If the
UDRP exercised the same forthright honesty it would work much better.

I certainly hope that we can all see the benefit of the third protocol, "insufficiency we pass" option. And why it should be used with liberality.

Sincerely,

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

Want to know about the UDRP?

Virtual Countries v. Republic of S. Afr., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8046

Or the definition of a domain name?

n1 "[A] domain name consists of a second-level domain, freely selected
by the individual registering the name, followed by a top-level
domain,    such as '.com,' '.net,' or '.org'." TCPIP Holding Co., Inc.
v. Haar Communications, Inc., 244 F.3d 88, 91 n.3 (2d Cir. 2001).

(The plaintiff here has registered "countryname.com" domain names, among
which
was southafrica.com-- and turkey.com, nepal.com, etc., etc., and sought
to have
the U. S. Federal Court preclude South Africa from using the WIPO UDRP.
Plaintiff
lost, because the Federal Court said it lacked jurisdiction of the
issue.)

The foregoing does not constitute legal advice to anyone.

Bill Lovell