Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

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

Dr. Berryhill,

The U.S. legal system is not quite the ivory tower monolith you seem to think.
It is more likely than not that those that can afford good Attorneys will
prevail over those that cannot.  I have not seen a single case of a registrant
obtaining a contingency lawyer on a domain name matter.  If you think mom and
pop down at wheel- haul.com can beat out U-hauls lawyers by hiring an IP lawyer
on the fly you live in a fairy tale.

I could be wrong and would be happy to find out that I was.  Please list a few
IP firms or divisions of firms that would take these matters on based upon a
recovery of fees concept.  Shucks, list a lawyer.

John Berryhill wrote:

> >
> > Actually, I'm with Dassa on this one. Besides, the perp would simply laugh
> > at any ICANN monetary demands.
>
> In the real world, this is why a plaintiff seeking certain kinds of
> preliminary relief, such as replevin of property, must first post a bond.
> It provides an automatic remedy to the defendant in the event the plaintiff
> is not acting in good faith.
>
> I'd prefer to see such a bond go to a prevailing domain name registrant,
> RDNH ruling or not, since it would enable more respondents with meritorious
> positions to obtain counsel.
>
> --
> 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

--
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