[nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control

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

Nobody seems to know the answers to the questions I had asked earlier about
what are the criteria for accrediting panelists, or what training materials
are provided to panelists, which is somewhat odd considering that UDRP
panelists are on this busy task force.  The following case is an interesting
study in what happens when panelists do not actually read the policies under
which they are making decisions.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00270.html

This is a .biz STOP decision.  The .biz STOP policy requires the domain name
to be identical to the complainant's mark (the "confusingly similar" language
was not included in .biz STOP).

The domain name is "newzealand.biz", and concerning the trademark claim, the
panelist unequivocally finds:

"To summarize its determination in this proceeding, the Panel rejects
Complainant's claim to trademark and service mark rights in 'NEW ZEALAND'."

And then the panelist orders transfer of the domain name.

The reason for the transfer was the panelist's understanding of the rules for
determining whether further challenges of multiple claimants would be
permitted after a transfer has been ordered.  That rule, which is based on
whether the complainant has legitimate rights of any kind, was used by this
panelist to write the trademark requirement completely out of the policy.