[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: [ga] court curbs icann
The NLJ article is online: go to <http://www1.law.com/illinois/> and
scroll down for a link.
In a ruling on May 3, U.S. District Judge
Marvin E. Aspen determined that the court
is not bound by proceedings of an ICANN
panel. But he indicated uncertainty about
just how much deference the
administrative procedures should be given.
He stayed the federal trademark case
pending the outcome of the ICANN
decision and said that "at this time we
declined to determine the precise standard
by which we would refuse the panel's
decision and what degree of deference (if
any) we would give that decision. Neither
the ICANN Policy nor its governing rules
dictate to the court what weight should be
given to a panel's decision."
Subesequent to the court ruling, the defendant won the UDRP case, see
Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> The National Law Journal headline is a little over-dramatic. What the judge said (correctly) was that if a TM owner *both* initiates a UDRP proceeding and files a cybersquatting lawsuit against a domain-name registrant, then the court hearing the cybersquatting case isn't bound by the outcome of the UDRP proceeding. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware & Building Supply.
> At 02:00 PM 5/18/00 -0400, Dori Kornfeld wrote:
> Court Curbs Power of ICANN
> The National Law Journal
> In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Illinois said that courts are not bound by the administrative proceedings of the organization established to provide management of the Internet domain-name system, the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html