[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Why Lawyers Shouldn't Run the Internet
THE UNDERSIGNED DIRECTS THAT THE DOMAIN NAME "HEWLITTPACKARD.COM"
REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT CUPCAKE CITY (HEWLITTPACKARD - DOM) BE CANCELLED
AND TRANSFERRED TO COMPLAINANT HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY.
DATED: March 31, 2000 by Judge Carolyn Marks Johnson (Ret.),
The snafu regarding being both canceled and transferred notwithstanding,
there is another message here. Cupcake City didn't even bother to respond.
The registration of hewlittpackard.com was indefensible and they knew it.
Why would they register it? Possibility #1: Hit and run profits. Pretending
to be Hewlett Packard, perhaps actually taking orders from consumers--out
and out fraud. Possibility #2: Diverting traffic to (usually) a porn site
whose revenue model is based on page views. Once you've been diverted
windows are automatically spawned sometimes sending you into a loop. The
name "Cupcake City" makes one suspects it would be #2. Again, it is hit and
run. Do it until you get caught. As in the Oreo example and Nasa.com and
I guess you can't throw out the baby with the bath water. You have to
protect the first amendment rights of the dross if you want to protect the
rights of those who have legitimate purpose, e.g., using parody to make a
I STILL think notification is the answer.
"may you live in interesting times."
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 12:30 PM
Subject: [wg-b] Why Lawyers Shouldn't Run the Internet
> To reinforce the point about the wisdom of re-inventing law, for which
> are alread perfectly good courts and judges to resolve disputes, comes
> chuckle from the ongoing UDRP fiasco:
> Just when I thought I'd seen it all from the National Arbitration Forum -
> inability to spell the domain name, inconsistent identifications of
> to the disputes, inability to number paragraphs, the cut-and-paste
> of the loanmart decision, and a string of "cancelled" domain names which
> have ALL been re-registered by Russ Smith - comes the order in
> "hewlittpackard.com" (see
> http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/93562.html ).
> It is apparently too much to ask for the distinguished arbitrators to bear
> in mind that the UDRP provides three (3) possible outcomes - transfer,
> cancellation, or no action. I challenge anyone to explain to me what the
> outcome was on the basis of the following order taken from the decision,
> which is identified as "name cancelled" on the NAF table:
> "THE UNDERSIGNED DIRECTS THAT THE DOMAIN NAME HEWLITTPACKARD.COM"
> REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT CUPCAKE CITY (HEWLITTPACKARD - DOM) BE CANCELLED
> AND TRANSFERRED TO COMPLAINANT HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY.
> DATED: March 31, 2000 by Judge Carolyn Marks Johnson (Ret.), "
> Cancelled or transferred? Only her hairdresser knows for sure. If it's a
> "transfer", then not even the NAF could figure it out when they put their
> table together. I'd love to know what the affected registrar is supposed
> do with this one. Bear in mind that they have a contractual obligation to
> act in accordance with the arbitrator's decision here. Thank you WIPO for
> providing this registrar with "protection from liability".
> But, in at least one sense, it really doesn't matter if the arbitrators
> read the rules and understand that "cancel" and "transfer" are mutually
> exclusive outcomes. Within 24 hours of re-registering websterhall.com,
> which was also "cancelled" by the NAF, Mr. Smith has received a phone call
> from the complainant's attorneys demanding that he hand over the domain
> which was supposed to be "transferred" to them. If the attorneys can't
> the decisions, it doesn't matter what they say.
> Nice try guys, and thanks for playing the WIPO Internet follies.
> This is what the legal "experts" have contributed to "internet stability".