[ga] When I say VEDA, you think of?

[Marc Schneiders <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>]

Right, Veda is a trademark. The WIPO panelist did find out that it is also
a venerated collection of religious Hindu texts. So he is smarter than the
one who did bodacious-tatas.com. However, since the registrant of VEDA.COM
did not reply to the UDRP-complaint, we must assume, he thinks, bad faith
as well as lack of legitimate interest.

So a complainant does not have to prove that? No, just an allegation.
And if you happen to have forgotten to do as much as that, the panelist
comes to your aid:

"the Panel may conclude that Complainant has not proved that the domain
name is used in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. This Panel, however,
believes that the poor drafting of a Complaint should not deprive a
Complainant of substantial justice, when arguments not explicitly
mentioned in the Complaint are both somewhat obvious"

Are there any cases in which the same easy going attitude for the sake of
so-called trademark justice is evidenced towards respondents who poorly
word their response? Or who don't reply? No, we assume the worst. So why
not the same approach to complainant? Especially, since this complainant
made allegations that the panelist rejected.

I am very sorry and apologize to all panelists for whom the work is not
business but a service to the community. But I cannot get it out of my
mind, that the fact that panelists are paid by the complainant leads to
this sort of horrible decisions.

This case reads like some prosecutor accusing me of murdering his father.
He cannot prove it. But since I do not answer to the allegation, the judge
decides I should hang anyway, not for killing the father, which is
unproven, but since the whereabouts of the mother are unknown, I might
have killed her. I wasn't accused of killing the mother, but still, for
the sake of justice, we assume the public prosecutor meant that. (This is
a very useful analogy.)

There are more 'gems' in this decision. A must read for everyone not yet
bored by the injustice dispensed by a United Nations Organization.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-1040.html

Finally, why is there a UDRP case two full years after it started
for a domain registered in 1994?

-- 
[02] I will be happy to answer any questions.
http://logoff.org/

--
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