Re: [nc-deletes] Deletes during UDRP

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

From: "Jane Mutimear" <jane.mutimear@twobirds.com>
>
> I don't see why it is so unsupportable that a domain should go to
>  someone who has gone to the trouble of making out a prima facie case

...for those not familiar with Latin, all she is saying is that the
complainant said:

"X is my trademark.  The registrant has no legitimate rights to it.  And I
believe they only registered it to sell it to me."

I have *seen* with my own two eyes complaints that passed WIPO's compliance
check that were only a couple of sentences longer than that.  The complaint
in the dw.com domain dispute at WIPO was a single paragraph long.  Period.

Explain to me why my sample complaint above does not make out a prima facie
case?

There are many, many UDRP decisions which note a failure of a complaint to
allege an element of the UDRP.  How on earth did they survive the rigorous
"prima facie case" test?

And how, in your opinion, does WIPO's "prima facie" bar differ, if at all,
from the NAF's, ADNDRC's, or CPR-ADR's?

>and paid over a $1,000  to lodge the complaint in comparison
>to someone who signs up to the wait list service for considerable
>less money and effort.

Ah, paying $1,000 makes a contract that is *better* than a $70 contract?

They paid $1,000 to have their case adjudicated.  They did not pay $1,000 for
certainty of obtaining a domain name.

The interest to WIPO in adding this "new feature" to the UDRP is not
surprising.  WIPO UDRP filings have dropped more than 400 cases per year for
two years running.  They need WIPO II or "something else" to attract more
interest in a product for which demand is waning by about a third in the last
year alone.

Turning the UDRP into a WLS de-railment technique will certainly find some
takers - and to the detriment of the intended purpose and proper scope of the
UDRP.