Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

["'Kent Crispin'" <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 11:16:22AM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Marilyn,
> 
> Thursday, March 01, 2001, 5:24:27 AM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> 
> > Actually, I think you are mistaken about the assumption that legitimate
> > businesses wouldnt' go to court to protect their trademarks.  They have no
> > choice but to protect their trademarks from infringement, misuse, etc. 
> 
> > I think that you would find that legitimate businesses would indeed have
> > taken many, if not all, of these cases to court.  The UDRP was devised, and
> > provides a low cost ability for someone engaged in a dispute, on either
> > side, to use a more cost effective, and shorter route to a decision.  Legal
> > redress remains an option, should either party be dissatisfied with the
> > outcome.
> 
> Many many of these cases, Marilyn, would never have gone to court
> simply because the UDRP give them a greater "right" to takes these
> names than the law gives them.

It's not necessary to have a "right" in order to take something to 
court.  It frequently happens that a company with lots of money can win 
a completely unjustified case, simply because the defendant doesn't 
have the money to defend.

> The UDRP standards are vastly lower
> than the standards that the law allows, and many of these cases would
> never have gone to court simply because those companies know that no
> court in the land would give them the result that the UDRP would.

See above...  Companies go to court all the time even when they have
worthless cases.  Even small companies do this -- we know one obvious 
example that I won't bother to name...

> The fact is that under the UDRP the burden of proof is shifted from
> the plaintiff to the defendant.  The defendant must prove their case,
> and the defendant is the one who has to go to the high expense of
> filing a court case in order to prevent the reverse hijacking of their
> domain name on grounds that no court would have permitted to happen.

Your faith in the courts is touching, but sadly naive.

> The UDRP ENCOURAGES these cases, and is heavily slanted in favor of
> the plaintiff in these cases, in fact the arbitration panels have a
> predisposition to the plaintiff simply because the plaintiff is the
> one who gets to shop the forum.
> 
> Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who claims that the UDRP is a fair and
> legitimate process is either blinding themselves to the facts, or has
> a definite bias which is making them present the facts in an incorrect
> manner.

Actually, it is you who has a definite bias.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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