3 member panel

[dvdrip]

The complainant has chosen a 3 member panel so I will have to choose a panelist. Should I propose a panelist from a WIPO I won?

The cases are not the same but similar. The case I won was for a last name domain and now the wipo is for a 3 letter domain.

Also should I propose panelists from 3 letter cases that were denied?

My questions may have straight forward answers but it's my first 3 member panel so I would like to hear opinions.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

It is extremly unusal for the complainant to choose a 3-member panel. I would review the facts of the case and choose panelists based on the issues in the case and how they ruled on such issues in the past.

I would hire John Berryhill or Ari Goldberger to help

 

[jberryhill]

The complainant has chosen a 3 member panel so I will have to choose a panelist. Should I propose a panelist from a WIPO I won?

The cases are not the same but similar. The case I won was for a last name domain and now the wipo is for a 3 letter domain.

Also should I propose panelists from 3 letter cases that were denied?

My questions may have straight forward answers but it's my first 3 member panel so I would like to hear opinions.

Your complainant is an idiot. They gave you a three member panel for free?

Oh, that's a bonus. I haven't seen one of those in a long time.

You have to match your panelists to your facts. A lot of folks think it is a matter of "respondent friendly" panelists. There aren't too many panelists who are predisposed to be "friendly" to anyone. They do have their personal biases, but by and large they are trying to be objective.

On the subject of requesting a panelist who ruled in a prior three letter case - make sure that your issues are the same as in that prior case. Lawyers in general delight in making distinctions between sets of circumstances. I had a case once in which the Complainant used a long and detailed opinion of Panelist X in order to make his point. Seeing the differences, I pointed them out and I requested Panelist X. Mr. X was quite happy to point out where the Complainant had glossed over some important determinative facts in the prior opinion.

You'll notice, for example, that I get edgy when people here try to say things like "What John is saying is..." It is the same thing with judges and UDRP panelists when someone attempts to apply their opinions in a poor fit to different facts.

Picking panelists is my favorite part of the process. Outside of wasting time on forums, my other hobby is horse racing (the betting part, not the riding part), and it involves the same kind of analysis.

If, in your response, you cited to specific previous cases, and if there are no facts in your case that would have impacted the outcome in those previous cases, then yes those are the panelists you want to start with on a short list. Then you want to look at other decisions of those panelists to find out what kinds of things they like or don't like.

By the same token, if your complainant has cited to specific cases, and mis-applied them to your circumstances, then you also want to look at those panelists.

 

[Dave Zan]

Your complainant is an idiot. They gave you a three member panel for free?

Heh, reminds me of this one:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1006.html

I'm still trying to recall another where the complainant also got 3 panelists for
2 domain names. They won one and lost the other, so they got like half their
money's worth.

 

[dvdrip]

My complainant is a bigger idiot than you think. Not only did he choose a 3 member panel but also proposed(first choice) as a panelist the one that had denied their claim for two domains a few years ago. He chose that panelist just because they come from the same country...

Guess what? That panelist is actually available and he was appointed. So was my first choice. Waiting for the presiding panelist...

 

[katherine]

I look forward to the ruling

 

[dvdrip]

John, you had your fair share of idiots...

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1126047.htm

 

[Focus]

I think they are just filing UDRP's for the hell of it if they can't buy a domain name cheaply..it's a coin flip, and sometimes it works...just imagine if this Snowe Bill passes, none of us will stand a chance!

 

[dvdrip]

You don't just pay $4k instead of $1.5K just for the heck of it.

But many lawyers don't even try to buy the domains and just file a UDRP just to get the billable hours. Then like you said it's a coin flip, but they don't care.

 

[jberryhill]

Guess what? That panelist is actually available and he was appointed. So was my first choice. Waiting for the presiding panelist...

Panelist selection is the fun part. I am really glad you are enjoying the process.

When you get the decision, do what I do:

Don't scroll to the end. If there is a "findings" section, skip that and go to the discussion. Start at the beginning and don't peek at the ruling. It's much more enjoyable when you get to the part where the decision starts to tilt.

John, you had your fair share of idiots...

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1126047.htm

That one is somewhat unique.

I have long been irritated by the fact that, even if the complainant loses, the panel will opine on the issue of identity or confusing similarity. It's something of a violation of normal principles of jurisprudence - you only should decide as much as you have to.

The timpano.com decision got the structure right, for once. Because they decided the bad faith issue in the respondent's favor, they didn't have to say anything about the other two.

Now, rip, one thing that is really going to make you feel strange if you win - you will still find something in the decision that bothers you.

There are two reasons for this.

The first is that the panel doesn't always consider all of the arguments in detail. In the decision linked above, they say I was arguing that the TM was invalid. I didn't really argue that. I simply mentioned that the translation data was present in their later TM registration, but not the earlier one, and that was questionable. Arguing that a registered TM is invalid in a UDRP proceeding is a non-starter. (Hey BL, quote that one)

The second thing is something I learned from a UDRP workshop at WIPO last fall. Several panelists were discussing various principles of decision writing. One panelist said, "The most dangerous guy in a courtroom is the guy who is going to lose."

What he meant by that is that the loser has to believe that he was at least given a fair hearing, and that he was heard. That is why you'll see a lot of decisions where the respondent wins, but the panel "has some doubts" or in some other manner will say something negative about the respondent - in the course of reaching a decision in the respondent's favor. It is sort of the "consolation prize" for the panel to say, "yeah, we think the respondent is a scumbag, but he's just a hair's breadth short of being a clear cybersquatter."

 

[dvdrip]

Panelist selection is the fun part. I am really glad you are enjoying the process.

I got one of the best 2,3-letter panelists...

When you get the decision, do what I do:

Don't scroll to the end. If there is a "findings" section, skip that and go to the discussion. Start at the beginning and don't peek at the ruling. It's much more enjoyable when you get to the part where the decision starts to tilt.

I would like to do this but I might just die before I finish the discussion.

That one is somewhat unique.

I have long been irritated by the fact that, even if the complainant loses, the panel will opine on the issue of identity or confusing similarity. It's something of a violation of normal principles of jurisprudence - you only should decide as much as you have to.

The timpano.com decision got the structure right, for once. Because they decided the bad faith issue in the respondent's favor, they didn't have to say anything about the other two.

Yes, in the cases I have read panelists would only leave out the second and third element or just the third element.
In this one they started from the third element and ended it there.

Now, rip, one thing that is really going to make you feel strange if you win - you will still find something in the decision that bothers you.

There are two reasons for this.

The first is that the panel doesn't always consider all of the arguments in detail. In the decision linked above, they say I was arguing that the TM was invalid. I didn't really argue that. I simply mentioned that the translation data was present in their later TM registration, but not the earlier one, and that was questionable. Arguing that a registered TM is invalid in a UDRP proceeding is a non-starter. (Hey BL, quote that one)

The second thing is something I learned from a UDRP workshop at WIPO last fall. Several panelists were discussing various principles of decision writing. One panelist said, "The most dangerous guy in a courtroom is the guy who is going to lose."

What he meant by that is that the loser has to believe that he was at least given a fair hearing, and that he was heard. That is why you'll see a lot of decisions where the respondent wins, but the panel "has some doubts" or in some other manner will say something negative about the respondent - in the course of reaching a decision in the respondent's favor. It is sort of the "consolation prize" for the panel to say, "yeah, we think the respondent is a scumbag, but he's just a hair's breadth short of being a clear cybersquatter."

I got this in a case I won. I was under the impression that I barely won.

I am not sure I understand what the panelist said. In what way are they afraid of the guy that is going to lose? I think I know but I would like to hear it.