Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

> eResolutions has never been ridiculed for decisions,
> like e.g. WIPO has been.

I beg to differ, so maybe I should make this ridicule as loud and clear as
possible.  eResolution is the ONLY UDRP provider ever to *reverse* a
determination which had already been made in the appropriate court of law.
The cello.com case should have been immediately rejected as res judicata.
How a UDRP panelist thought he could make a determination on a thinner record
and with no oral argument, when a US federal judge had already denied
cross-motions for summary judgment, and eventually dismissed the case WITH
PREJUDICE, went against the fundamental principle of the UDRP not to alter
rights under national law.  The eResolution cello.com decision is, for that
reason, the very top of my list of wrongheaded and dangerous UDRP decisions,
and was made without any regard to the UDRP principles.  Saying "that was a
court, but this is the UDRP" demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the
role of the UDRP relative to real live courts.

As an institution, eResolution demonstrated their disregard for UDRP
principles by going after eResolution.com - even though the domain name was
registered before eResolution had developed any trademark claim at all.  The
eResolution.com decision did not issue from them, but eResolution
demonstrated their "fairness" by bringing the complaint, which should have
been rejected on the ground that the domain name simply could not have been
registered with a bad faith intent against them.  Sorry, you live by the
sword and you die by it.  I have zero sympathy, and a deep well of contempt,
for hypocritical bastards like eResolution who now claim they are going out
of business because they were nice guys.  They weren't and they proved it by
their own cynical use of the UDRP itself.

In fact, it was THAT case which was the primary precedent relied on by the
idiot who tried to hi-jack tobacco.com.

If you want to defend eResolution, then explain the decisions in efads.com,
host.com, or federalcourtofcanada.com.  Try to explain why it is taking them
more than six months to decide a simple geographic name case -
princeedwardisland.com.  Try to explain why their clerks would not cooperate
by providing contact info to other DRP's when eRes panelists had been
requested in three-member disputes before other providers, and would merely
provide snotty "that's not one of our cases" when a respondent attempted to
use the UDRP provision allowing selection of any providers' panelist roster.
How many phone calls and emails do you think it should take for them to
simply provide WIPO with an address?  They have had their share of quirks and
oddball decisions.  The martyr routine from them now is a bit much to
stomach.

John



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