[ga] Re: UDRP News

["Paul Cotton" <paulc@joinin.com>]

Whilst on this subject, there are a few of questions about the UDRP I would
love to have answered.

1) How can offering for sale be bad faith seeing as prior to a determination
to the contrary, the domain holder would have rights in the domain, and if
their ownership were vindicated they could rightly offer their asset for
sale at a price that they choose.  To treat an offer for sale as inherent
bad faith is circular logic - take the cheaper.com case.  The onus should be
upon the complainant to show why no other party should be able to use that
common dictionary term.  Trademarks are not granted by the USPTO or any
other tm agency to blanket prevent terms being used and its time the UDRP
panelists stopped pretending otherwise.

2) Where exactly in the UDRP or the UDRP rules does it allow for previous
cases to be treated as precedent?  This is something has been allowed to
happen over time yet it just erodes the UDRP rules and the ethos behind the
UDRP.  Its interesting to note that the UK's new dispute resolution policy
explicitly states that past cases are not to be treated as precedent.

3) If a complainant can refile a complaint doesn't that effectively give
them a route to a form of appeal that does not have a corresponding route
for the domain holder.

Regards

Paul Cotton

--
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