DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga-tm] Motion #6: UDRP review

Without having read the case and thus taking its description
at face value, the legal conclusions expressed seem not to be
correct. There seems to have been a procedural error by
someone, rather than any new, precedent-making law --
see below:

List Admin wrote:

From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: <ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:33:36 -0400
Subject: Motion #6: UDRP review
3. We note with great concern that one US court has
decided that a respondent has no right to appeal a
decision by a UDRP panel to transfer a name.* If this
becomes a precedent, the procedural and substantive
aspects of the UDRP need to be substantially revised.
* Judge Young (Mass District Court, USA) held that no
declaratory judgment was available to
the registrant of corinthians.com, including under the
ACPA, if the victorious party in the UDRP (the
trademark holder) disclaimed any intention to file a
trademark lawsuit of his own. There being exactly that
disclaimer, he then dismissed the case for failure to
state a claim.
In short, the * part does not lead to 3. There is a constitutional
requirement that for a Federal Court to have jurisdiction, there must
be a "case or controversy."  If the trademark holder disclaimed any
intention to file suit, then there is no trademark case or controversy,
and that kind of decision has been standard for decades.  But that
does not mean there could not have been some "other" case or
controversy that would have supported a case.  The obvious one,
of course, would be that concerning the authority and jurisdiction
of the UDRP process in the first place.  Consequently, the broad
statement that "a respondent has no right to appeal a decision by a
UDRP panel to transfer a name" is simply not true.
         Bill Lovell


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>