<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
Re: [ga] When I say VEDA, you think of?
Marc and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
Let us all face the facts regarding ICANN/WIPO's UDRP. It is
broken, has been flawed from the beginning, is not a method for
settling Domain Name disputes that is legitimate on a global basis,
and is presently managed by individuals that are relative newcomers
to the internet and especially the DNS.
I personally don't see a Mark for VEDA.COM in the TESS database...
Nor it there a service mark filed for VEDA.COM...
Here are the two VEDA marks doc:
Typed Drawing
Word Mark
VEDA
Translations
The English translation of "VEDA" is "one or all of the
holy books of writing in Hinduism".
Goods and Services
IC 010. US 026 039 044. G & S: MEDICAL AND VETERINARY
APPARATUS, NAMELY
SPECULA, SPATULAS, PROCTOSCOPES AND ANAL SPECULA AND
DISPOSABLE
COMPONENTS, PARTS AND ACCESSORIES FOR THE AFORESAID
APPARATUS
Mark Drawing Code
(1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number
76217634
Filing Date
February 28, 2001
Filed ITU
FILED AS ITU
Owner
(APPLICANT) S.S.H. Medical Limited COMPANY AUSTRALIA Unit
34, 2 Railway Parade,
Lidcombe New South Wales 2141 AUSTRALIA
Attorney of Record
Jeffrey H. Epstein
Section 44 Indicator
SECT44
Priority Date
September 4, 2000
Prior Registrations
2443782
Type of Mark
TRADEMARK
Register
PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator
LIVE
================
Typed Drawing
Word Mark
VEDA
Goods and Services
IC 033. US 047 049. G & S: Alcoholic beverages, namely,
vodka
Mark Drawing Code
(1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number
76317944
Filing Date
September 20, 2001
Published for Opposition
September 17, 2002
Registration Number
2658817
Registration Date
December 10, 2002
Owner
(REGISTRANT) "Veda" JSC CORPORATION RUSSIAN FEDERATIO 13
Teatralnaya ul.
Kingisepp, Leningradskaya oblast RUSSIAN FEDERATIO
188450
Attorney of Record
Marina F. Cunningham
Section 44 Indicator
SECT44
Priority Date
April 25, 2001
Type of Mark
TRADEMARK
Register
PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator
LIVE
Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
|