Re: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

I can tell you that whatever the criteria are, WIPO appears to believe I
do not meet them, as they rejected my application....

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--