Re: [ga-udrp] the UDRP

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Eric, Chris and all,

  Indeed!  This type of situation show clearly why the current "Version"

of the ICANN/WIPO UDRP is terribly flawed and needs serious revamping
or trashing all together.  It is also one of the main reasons new
registries
with their own TLD's are cropping up all over the place, such as New.Net

amongst a host of others, and still more in development that I am aware
of.
This is also one of several reasons why some ccTLD's are very
disillusioned
with ICANN and have decided to seek stronger redress.  Some will do
so through other various means in the near future.  China is one such
example.  Others will follow suit...

Eric Dierker wrote:

>    That would be registrars can decide what ever they want.  I cannot
> figure who you protect by not publishing the full name.  There is only
>
> one reasonable explanation for this type of situation.
>
> Eric
>
> NameCritic wrote:
>
> > Do we have a UDRP or not. Here is an interesting twist and another
> > example of "UNIFORM". Someone registered a domain name that had
> > expired and dropped. SanpNames.com provides a monitoring service and
>
> > got the name for their client. The domain name was as similar to
> their
> > client's last name that he could see coming available. The client
> > played by the rules. The word the domain represents is generic.
> After
> > getting the name, within two weeks a lawyer called on and threatened
>
> > the new registrant with a UDRP action. The lawyer then called on and
>
> > emailed lots of other companies with similar names and let them know
>
> > about the situation for some reason. Some of them emailed the new
> > registrant to ask why a lawyer was also contacting them. The lawyer
> > also threatened Tucows. Even though it is a generic word it seems
> > there are 9 TMs in various classes on the name. The lawyer
> represented
> > the company that let the domain name expire who is one of the TM
> > Holders. By the way. They got the domain in a UDRP action in the
> first
> > place then still failed to properly protect the domain by letting it
>
> > expire. Now this letter comes from Tucows to the new registrant.
> > The above mentioned domain name was accidentally deleted due to an
> > administrative error.  This deletion allowed the name to become
> > available
> > for public registration, at which point you registered the name.  As
>
> > the
> > name should not have been available for registration, we will be
> > returning
> > the name to the original Registrant, in accordance with section 21
> of
> > the
> > Registration Agreement.  You will, of course receive a  full refund
> > for the
> > registration amount.
> >
> > If you have any questions or concerns, or would like to discuss this
>
> > matter
> > further, please do not hesitate to contact me.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Karen Johnston
> > Compliance Officer OpenSRS
> > Tucows Inc.
> > disputes@opensrs.org
> > lhutz@tucows.com
> > 416-535-0123 ext 1260
> > 1-800-371-6992 Amazing how the UDRP isn't needed at all and
> Registries
> > can just decide cases on their own.  Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-udrp@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html