Domain Dispute Sanity 4
Silver A writes: "In a recent action, the WIPO has ruled that aollnews.com is "confusingly similar" to aolnews.com, and ordered the domain transfered to AOL; however, even without a response from the holder of the domain, the WIPO ruled in regards to "fucknetscape.com" that: 'The Panel regards it as inconceivable that anyone looking at this Domain Name will believe that it has anything to do with a company of such high repute as the Complainant. It is manifestly, on its face, a name, which can have nothing whatever to do with the Complainant. It is a name, which, by its very nature, declares that it is hostile to Netscape. ... The Panel simply does not understand why on earth the Complainant would ever wish to register this Domain Name.' So, finally some sanity from the WIPO regarding protest sites." Well, you must remember that these arbitration firms have a stable of arbitrators; even though the system is palpably biased toward large firms (see earlier stories), at least some of the arbitrators have to approach these cases more reasonably.
Not good examples (Score:3, Informative)
Rulings on domain where there is no defense made should not be considered on determining the sanity of a ruling body.
Re:Not good examples (Score:1)
i do beleive that in absence of a defense, giving the domain to the complaintant by default is completely within the terms of the domain dispute resolution policy;
Not good example? Not. (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets see here...
On the one hand, we have a ruling by the WIPO
that considers the obvious, which is good.
On the other hand, we have a process where
judgement is made without a "defense" being
presented, which seems to ignore the concept of
"the process". This seems very bad.
Perhaps the point is that some issues are
obvious enough that the complaint is
considered 100% without merit,
and "dismissed" out of hand.
Perhaps there is basis for hope, after all.