Legal News

Example of a Split UDRP Decision

0

Someone posted an interesting UDRP-related question in the Legal Section of DN Forum yesterday. The person asked; If a Complainant filed a UDRP for multiple domain names owned by a single entity, are the panelists forced to make an “all or nothing” decision, or could they determine that some of the domain names should be transferred while others should be kept by the current owner?

Domain attorney John Berryhill provided evidence that a split decision could be reached. Berryhill cited the Yell Limited v. Ultimate Search UDRP Case No. D2005-0091. The disputed domain names in this case were YEL.com, YellWeb.com, UKYellowPages.com and LondonYellowPages.com. In the end, the panelists ruled that:

“For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names, yellweb.com, ukyellowpages.com and londonyellowpages.com, be transferred to the Complainant.

The Complaint relating to the domain name yel.com is dismissed.” — Source: ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Yell Limited v. Ultimate Search

In the end, the Respondent was able to retain the most valuable domain name of the group.

Get WIPO Updates

1

One of the most critical things a domain investor needs to do is stay apprised of domain-related subject matters, especially UDRP decisions. Domain investors can learn quite a bit from various UDRP rulings, and it is pertinent that everyone who has any money invested in domain names should stay on top of these.

I just found out that WIPO allows people to subscribe to receive UDRP updates and decisions posted by panelists. I recommend that people subscribe here: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/subscribe/decisions.html

House Approves Senate’s Ban on Internet Taxes

Michael and Judi BerkensThanks to Mike for sending me this link this morning: House Approves Senate’s Ban on Internet Taxes

In an unanimous vote (402-0), the US House of Representatives approved an extension of The Internet Tax Freedom Act yesterday, prohibiting local and state governments from collecting taxes on various Internet services, including email and instant messages. This is good news, as a taxation on these types of services would have impacted just about everyone on the Internet, and it would have caused some drastic measures to police.

For the article, please click here.

Photo courtesy of Barbary Neu, borrowed from DNJournal

Visions.com WIPO – Big Risk Rewarded

6

Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., of Medford, Wisconsin filed a WIPO for the domain name Visions.com, owned by Lori Phan. In a decision reached on October 10, 2007, the single WIPO panelist found in favor of the Respondent, and the complaint was denied.

I believe the domain owner took a risk by not requesting a 3 member panel. Although she did a great job of presenting her case, it could have easily gone the other way based on some previous decisions. I think it is always best to ask (and pay) for a 3 member WIPO panel because it means the Complainant needs to convince 2 of 3 people that they are right. Having a single panelist is more risky, in my opinion, especially for a high value name like Visions.com.

If the domain name is worth much more than the cost of the 3 member WIPO panel, I would think it would be best to request it.

Observation About WIPO Decisions

0

I spend a fair amount of time researching WIPO decisions, and I think anyone who is serious about this business should, too.    I’ve noticed that I hardly ever recognize any of the names or companies that are the Respondents in these decisions.    It’s probably a good thing, but there are an awful lot of people out there registering unquestionable trademarks, and I rarely recognize their names.    The only names I ever recognize are typically Respondents in cases where the Complainant shouldn’t have a chance in hell at winning (FCC.com for example).

I’m not claiming to know a large portion of domain owners in the world, but I know alot of the names of people via their posts in domain forums and Whois searches.    To me, it looks like there is a group of legitimate domain owners whose reputations are being sullied by less ethical domain owners.

I don’t know if anyone has made the same observation before, but this needs to be stopped.

Recent Posts

Squadhelp Adds Escrow.com as a Payment Option

1
Squadhelp has added Escrow.com as a payment option for buyers. The addition of the Escrow.com option was shared by ARIYAS on X this morning: 👍...

Some Thoughts on .AI Domain Names

19
There is no question that .AI domain names have become a hot topic of late. With considerable amounts of venture funding flowing into AI...

Handoff to Dan on Imported Leads Can be Confusing

0
I've been using the lead import option at Dan.com more regularly. Although the 5% commission is not ideal, transactions tend to move more quickly...

ArtificialIntelligence.com Goes Up for Sale

11
I tried to buy the ArtificialIntelligence.com domain name multiple times over the last 10 years. The emails I sent to the registrant went unanswered,...

EU Gives More IP Protection to Food & Drink Producers

0
Did you know that some well-known food and drink varieties are protected intellectual property regulations? Popular types of drinks and foods that are protected...