I was looking through a UDRP decision today regarding the domain name Wooot.com, which was filed by the company that owns the popular Woot website. It didn’t seem like a real surprise that the company won the decision, but the result of the decision was pretty surprising.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wooot.com> domain name be CANCELLED
Instead of giving the domain name to the complainant (which happens almost all of the time when a UDRP case is won, the panelist (Hon Nelson A Diaz (ret.)) opted to cancel the domain name instead. To make things even stranger, there was no reasoning supplied by the panelist for doing this.
I hope the complainant is good at catching drops – or they don’t get this panelist on the next go-round if it’s picked up by another party.
Thanks to George for the tip.
The cut & paste UDRP factory strikes again.
Also happened in the recent bibi.com case against Future Media Architects.
Now that I’ve read through the full decision, this is clearly a cut and paste job. Sentences stop in the middle of no where, it references a completely different domain name, etc. The panelist should be reprimanded.
that panelist may not know abt domain cancellationn and transfer
The NAF should just dump him. This is appalling.
The story turns out to be even deeper:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100423_naf_copying_pasting_nonsense_into_udrp_decisions/
NAF and ICANN need to do some explaining, whey there has been such systematic copying/pasting of nonsense.