Re[4]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

[William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>]

Sunday, Sunday, October 28, 2001, 6:47:21 AM, John Berryhill wrote:

> From: "William X Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
>>
>> The issue is that they MUST submit to the UDRP.  At the very minimum
>> the domain registrant should be able to reject the UDRP process, and
>> thus select to have the matter tried in court should the complainant
>> think they have a case that meets the higher standard the law places.

> The problem is that the plaintiff gets to pick where that suit is filed.
> See, e.g. the sequence of events noted at www.strick.com.

That needs to be removed completely.  The UDRP should not have any
bearing on the jurisdiction of a court case.

Besides, this section only gets invoked if the domain registrant has
lost.

> UDRP rule 4(k) states that the domain name registrant may decide to take the
> matter to court at any time, including prior to a decision in the UDRP
> proceeding. If there is such pending litigation, the UDRP decision will not
> be implemented.  So, how does the present UDRP not do what you are proposing
> be done?

Because he then bears the cost of pursuing the litigation.  My point
was that the registrant should be able to say, "I don't submit to
arbitration on this, if you want to come after me for infringement,
then you must do it in a court that has jurisdiction on this matter."

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

--
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