Re: [ga] court curbs icann

["John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>]

The NLJ article is online: go to <http://www1.law.com/illinois/> and
scroll down for a link.

    In a ruling on May 3, U.S. District Judge
    Marvin E. Aspen determined that the court
    is not bound by proceedings of an ICANN
    panel. But he indicated uncertainty about
    just how much deference the
    administrative procedures should be given.
    He stayed the federal trademark case
    pending the outcome of the ICANN
    decision and said that "at this time we
    declined to determine the precise standard
    by which we would refuse the panel's
    decision and what degree of deference (if
    any) we would give that decision. Neither
    the ICANN Policy nor its governing rules
    dictate to the court what weight should be
    given to a panel's decision."

Subesequent to the court ruling, the defendant won the UDRP case, see
<http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0187.html>.

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
> The National Law Journal headline is a little over-dramatic. What the judge said (correctly) was that if a TM owner *both* initiates a UDRP proceeding and files a cybersquatting lawsuit against a domain-name registrant, then the court hearing the cybersquatting case isn't bound by the outcome of the UDRP proceeding. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware & Building Supply.
> 
> At 02:00 PM 5/18/00 -0400, Dori Kornfeld wrote:
> >>>>
> 
>           Court Curbs Power of ICANN
>           The National Law Journal
>           In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Illinois said that courts are not bound by the administrative proceedings of the organization established to provide management of the Internet domain-name system, the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN.
>
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html