Slashdot Log In
The UDRP: Is It Un-Fair.com?
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Aug 20, 2001 02:51 PM
from the selling-to-the-stronger-bidder dept.
from the selling-to-the-stronger-bidder dept.
typecast writes "A study of more than 3,000 UDRP decisions by a Canadian law prof. suggests that ICANN's domain-dispute resolution process may be even more unfair than Slashdot types already believe. This article says the study confirms organizations such as WIPO and the National Arbitration Forum decide most cases in favor of trademark holders. But it also says it's clear that individual arbitrators with strong "anti-cybersquatting" records are the ones most likely to be handed UDRP cases. A copy of the study and a minimal database of UDRP-panelist stats can be found at Geist's own UDRPInfo Web site."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Devil's Advocat (Score:2, Interesting)
Ben Spigel
Sic Transit Gloria
Logic bombs away! (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, hey, I know the every day average guy has no chance in hell up against a corporation when undergoing fast-track arbitration. And maybe I'm just not clued in to the majority of these cases, but if someone made a statement to me to the effect of "A guy named Joe Toledo bought the domain ford.com and now the car manufacturer wants it, who do you think should have it?" I'd be inclined to side with Ford. Because Ford has a trademark, much like an integral part of their corporate entity. Now, if you told me a guy named "Joe Ford" bought it, I'd say you've got a case. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of these defendants in domain name disputes don't have a reason other than profiteering to have these domain names and that's why they lose.
Re:Logic bombs away! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, so?
A trademark, if I recall correctly, is only supposed to protect a certain range of products within that product's "sphere." So it's perfectly legal to sell a pen called "Ford Pens", and you're not trampling on any trademark.
Plus, why do you even need to have a use for a name? Domain names are commodities. If you bought it first, and Ford missed the boat, well, tough luck for them. You've got it, they don't.
If you're deliberately deceiving pepole, trying to *look* like some other site, okay, that's a problem with look-and-feel, trade-dress sort of laws. But if I wanted to put my family website at, say, OfficeXP.com, then dammit, I should be allowed to do that.
My biggest worry is that the same
Dammit, when will people get it through their heads that you cannot own domain names for EVERY variant on EVERY product or trademark you own? It's just not possible, and it's just not fair.
Grr.
Sorry, this is something that's been bugging me for a while. Gotta cut back on the caffeine...
Cybersquatters are scum... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry if this opinion offends, but when I really resent jerks paying $35/year to register a domain and then extorting $200K out of some company. I'm tired of finding every domain name that I might want in the hands of some cybersquatter who has no intention of ever using or developing it. It reminds me of someone who buys up all of the plywood before a hurricane and sells it for $100/sheet to his desperate neighbors.
51st state? (Score:5, Funny)
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, CANADA, U.S.A.,
20 Aug 2001, 8:12 AM CST
When did Canada become the 51st state? News to me!
Arbitrator should be randomly assigned (Score:2)
That way, Joe Corporation can't nuke JoeCoSucks.com as easily by going to one of the "Trademark Friendly" arbitrators.
Squatting... (Score:2)
The whole internet is unfair! (Score:1)
Why do we have multiple, limited TLDs... (Score:1)
What ever happened to first come first served? (Score:1)
I can't believe anyone is seriously trying to bring some sort of order to this mess. That is the absolute definition of futility!
Here is an example: WHOIS lookup for LoanCityAtemyballs.com [networksolutions.com]
sounds like we need new UDRP rules (Score:1)
So, make it a lottery. Ammend the UDRP so that instead of saying an arbitrator - known as a panelist under the UDRP - is selected by a service provider such as WIPO or NAF alone when the complainant - the trademark holder - requests just one panelist, it says the panelist will be drawn by lot.
This almost seems to be saying that the UDRP suffers from the same problem as most everything else involving lawyers. Namely, lawyers have nothing to do with moral justice. Their job is to win cases. If they do that, they are considered to be good.
Demonstration and explanation of the bug (Score:1)
Observe:
Jucius Maximus (Score:2, Interesting)
Is anyone surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus, there is a built-in incentive for arbitrators to decide for complainants rather than respondents.
Similarly, the US correctional system (which is run by for-profit corporations), has an incentive to make the situation worse rather than better, with the unfortunate result of these corporations funneling money to 'tough on crime' political candidates, and creating the 'war on some drugs' to incarcerate the perpetrators of victimless crimes.
These are examples of elementary positive feedback loops, and no-one should be surprised at the results.
LMAO! This is how far I got. (Score:1)
"When a lot of us hear the word "gooey", we think about sticky buns or creamy sugary fillings (yum)."
C'mon, seriously, that's not what most people think about is it?
Pre-Trademark domains? (Score:1)
For example, www.net [www.net] is a test domain for Worldcom Canada. It also seems like it would infringe on MSFT's
an example (Score:1)
Who knows? (Score:1)
It seems to me that more and more we're seeing control handed over to organizations that have no direct public accountability. (Of course, I haven't been around that long. :) If an elected official does something we don't like they have to answer to the voters. (I don't doubt that they're often bought, but they still have some respect for the opinions of their constituents.) In the case of organizations like ICANN, although they accept public input, we have no direct control. This makes everyone suscpicious.
The WTO is another example. Sure they say that they have our best interests at heart, but we don't know that. We never voted for them. I think this is the biggest reason that there are so many upset about the WTO, and many more who are made very uneasy by it.
I am made nervous by unelected, powerful, rule-making agencies whose loyalties are obscure.
Inept Judges (Score:2, Informative)
From the decisions I've read, a lot depends on whether the chosen judge Gets It. Here's an example [wipo.int] that represents the worst case of a clueless arbiter. It was ruled by Mr. Michael Ophir that bodacious-tatas.com should be transfered to the Tata Group in India.
Here's the rationale, using the standard criteria:
(i) your domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
i) TATA exists as a string within the domain name, thus, confusingly similar
ii) If (i), then the TATA Group has a legitimate interest in the domain, therefore the respondent does not
iii) If (ii), then it is used in bad faith. Plus, it's porn!
Judicial bootstrapping! Most judgments aren't that bad, but there are more examples like that (absolutporno.com [arb-forum.com], et. al.). It seems that porn sites are treated as a lower class.
Freenet has no such problems. (Score:1)
Also, there is no court that can take the information down. The Freenet pages are encrypted on hundreds of computers. The more popular the page, the more copies. The DeCSS source code and other "controversial" I.P. information will stay right where it is.
Go freenet!
Armani trademark wasn't enough (Score:1)
A graphic designer who holds armani.com wa given the right to continue holding the domain.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6841291.ht
The UDRP Needs MAJOR Reform (Score:1)
Daming points and peer review. (Score:2)
A very STRONG tip: if you are the respondant in a domain dispute, the other party gets to select which agency handles the dispute. Your only chance in counter-rigging the decision ahead of time is to pay (at a 50% discount) for a 3 member panel to hear the case. If they already paid for a 3 member panel, they've done you a service.
As a bonus, with a three party panel, YOU get to select one of the members! Further, the numbers show a STRONG statistical coorelation between 3 member panels (where the defendant makes an argument) and 1 member panels (where the defendant makes an argument) that are less leaned towards the party bringing the complaint.
Note of interest: when the party bringing the complaint paid for a 3 person panel, the three person panel also ruled in favor of the complaintant less often than on a 1 person panel.
Also interesting were the numbers at one of the arbitration agencies that (not the words of the researchers) pointed out a number of 'hanging judges'. And guess what? These hanging judges were assigned a disproportionate amount of the caseload.
What does this all say? Peer review. You're less likely to have a rogue judge if his actions are reviewed by other judges. And yes, they have pointed out rouge judges which have completely ignored the rules of arbitration.
Peer review is good for code, and it is good for arbitration.
hats off (Score:1)
of internet infrastructure. There must be a
better way, like alternative DNS servers, that
can be distributed to all internet users.
First DNS server is a rogue DNS server that will
redirect any A queries to a defaced versions of
websites , or rather sites that will explain
what kind of nasty things the company does and
and what kind of things can be done to hurt the
bottom line of the company.
The flag of the movement can be, to advertise an
IP adress to be inserted as primary DNS server.
Loads maybe high, but it might be justified
for it be located and even sponsored by Exodus
or some other entity and there will be free
advertising for whoever does it. Exodus,
actually would be excellent choice.
I am currently busy and don't have this many
resources as to run a rogue DNS server for masses
but this can be potentially good thing.
If server has good availability maybe an added
benefit compared to those fucked up @home and other ISP dns servers.
WIPO.org.uk challenge WIPO.org and US DoC (Score:1)
I have been corresponding with United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Department of Commerce (also UK Patent Office).
They do not deny this solution would separately identify all trademarks.
Every common word is trademarked, from Alpha to Zeta and Aardvark to Zulu - most many times.
The authorities wish to abridge peoples use of these words - the US Government violate peoples First Amendment rights.
People were clever enough to buy these domains - it is their Intellectual Property.
Big business decided it wanted to steal these words from people - even though these words are NOT just used solely by them.
For trademarks to claim it as their OWN is an abuse of 'unfair competition' law.
They all use spin, lies and propaganda.
The big lie being there is no answer to these 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' or 'passing off' problems.
The Sunrise Period for new TLDs is a propaganda solution - ask authorities to deny this:
A THOUSAND new open TLD, each with sunrise, will not solve the problems.
Apple computers, will still make claim to every Apple.[anything] - even though they share word with 727 other trademarks in the USA - plus all those in 200+ countries.
You still not know which owns apple.info - it is all a load of bull.
To see solution, please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] - World Intellectual Piracy Organization.
Domain brackets trick not working in sigs? (Score:1)
I was already beginning to appreciate and trust the cool new