Best. UDRP Allegation. Ever.

[Dloganesq]

A common fallacy is to believe that a UDRP decision is representative of everything that was alleged in the proceeding.

It's part of the reason why a lot of folks don't understand some of the spectacularly bad UDRP decisions. The panel gets to determine how they present, in the decision, the facts and arguments raised by the parties.

Yes. Panelists can simply cherry-pick bits and pieces from the documents submitted-- or in at least one case I know of-- just use "facts" pulled from absolutely nowhere to support a particular result ...

I should never have been sipping coffee when I started to read this thread, John- hilarious.

________________________________________
Deborah A. Logan, Esq.
Email: [email protected]
www.DomainLegalCounsel.com
www.lwh-law.com

 

[jberryhill]

Yes. Panelists can simply cherry-pick bits and pieces from the documents submitted-- or in at least one case I know of-- just use "facts" pulled from absolutely nowhere to support a particular result

Ms. Logan knows it - every attorney who has defended one of these things knows it.

The killer comes when the case is discussed on forums and people say, "Why didn't you argue X" or "the domain registrant shouldn't have done Y" in the belief that the decision tells the whole story.

In fairness, UDRP panelists are paid next to nothing, and I think a lot of them skim. The human mind has a remarkable ability to fill in "gaps" with things it thinks it knows.

The only thing you can do is to avoid writing in a dry expository style that you would write an ordinary legal filing, and instead use a narrative style more like a summation to a jury.

Some lawyers respond to the complaint with serial responsive statements keyed to the complaint, as if it were a pleading.

I should never have been sipping coffee when I started to read this thread, John- hilarious.

Okay.... put down your coffee... there's more.

The Complainant doesn't own any of the trademark documents it references as evidence of its mark.

That's why they didn't seem to know, when they filed the complaint, that the pending US application they reference was refused. The companies appear to be related, but there is no license, no grant of a right to enforce, nada.

I normally don't mention pending cases, but this one is such a circus of stupid that their best move is to withdraw it.

Three attorneys signed off on the thing, too.

 

[domaingenius]

Lol, I bet WIPO would still allow the complaint and transfer the domain.

DG

 

[jberryhill]

Lol, I bet WIPO would still allow the complaint and transfer the domain.

We shall see.

Since the same lawyers were dressed down once before for making the same kind of frivolous filing in a prior case last year, it would be interesting to see if those attorneys can be flagged as engaging in a "pattern of bad faith".

I don't see why not, since that would be symmetric to the "pattern of bad faith" evidence of cybersquatting, and fair is fair, yes? And that is what I have invited the Panel to do.

If they don't withdraw, then those attorneys should never be taken seriously by a UDRP panel.

 

[Dloganesq]

Ms. Logan knows it - every attorney who has defended one of these things knows it.

Okay.... put down your coffee... there's more.


Three attorneys signed off on the thing, too.

Well, there you go. Love it. Jr. lawyer researched the issues, put together a 5 page memo and then wrote the complaint; mid-senior level atty checked it over, fixed typos & put his clever touch to it; partner signed it?

Client= triple-billed.

Their first names wouldn't be Larry, Moe & Curly...? (made the mistake of picking up my coffee again before I got to your last sentence there) That response must be a joy to write (bet it is hard to do without snark).
________________________________________
Deborah A. Logan, Esq.
Email: [email protected]
www.DomainLegalCounsel.com
www.lwh-law.com

 

[Theo]

Introducing a new level of membership on DNF.

 

[domaingenius]

Introducing a new level of membership on DNF.

LOL, can I put one on my website Acro ?

DG

 

[Theo]

Sure. Ridiculous, isn't it?

 

[katherine]

Membership starts at $1500

 

[TheLegendaryJP]

I wonder if we will get to know whom the lawyers involved are ? lol

 

[Theo]

Membership starts at $1500

Free membership to RegisteredInBadFaith.com as well.

 

[draggar]

We shall see.

Since the same lawyers were dressed down once before for making the same kind of frivolous filing in a prior case last year, it would be interesting to see if those attorneys can be flagged as engaging in a "pattern of bad faith".

I don't see why not, since that would be symmetric to the "pattern of bad faith" evidence of cybersquatting, and fair is fair, yes? And that is what I have invited the Panel to do.

If they don't withdraw, then those attorneys should never be taken seriously by a UDRP panel.

I find it interesting that "bad faith" is only bad from one side, domain owners lose their domains to bad faith all the time (bad faith on either side). Other than a reverse-hijacking ruling, is there any accountability? What's to stop someone (other than money - but if they have clients paying them, then so be it) from filing bad faith WIPO after bad faith WIPO?

Can the BAR step in or are they free to take as many bad faith cases as they wish?

(I"m not completely sure this came out the right way, though).

 

[Theo]

It's funny that law and religion use the word "faith" to signify different things.

 

[draggar]

It's funny that law and religion use the word "faith" to signify different things.

Faith = believing - I think it's the same thing on both ends. "Bad Faith" = "bad / poor intentioned belief".

 

[EnricoSchaefer]

Don't you hate it when 'trademark lawyers' dabble in UDRP proceedings?

 

[jberryhill]

Well, there you go. Love it. Jr. lawyer researched the issues, put together a 5 page memo and then wrote the complaint; mid-senior level atty checked it over, fixed typos & put his clever touch to it; partner signed it?

It's a domain forum, but I'll take the invitation to play "read between the lines".

We have:

Partner:

- "Listed in The Best Lawyers in America, 2008"

- And in his state "Super Lawyers" rag. I didn't know that particular exercise in cronyism existed outside of my own state.

- Phi Beta Kappa in whatever his undergrad degree was. I don't know why law firms leave out the undergrad degree. It's particularly unhelpful if someone calls themselves an "intellectual property attorney" when a client is looking for an actual registered patent attorney and you want to know their technical discipline.

- Martindale Hubbell AV rated.

Very nice undergrad and law schools, I'll give him props for that and for Phi Beta Kappa. Aside from the fluffy crap like those reach-around "Best Lawyers" things, he has stellar qualifications. I know a PA "Super Lawyer" who couldn't find his ass with a map.

"Staff Attorney"

This must be the firm's designation for "Of Counsel" or maybe she's a lateral hire and they don't do partner laterals.

Under publications, she has an "upcoming" article in the county bar association newsletter.

Decent schools, but I have law school envy. I used to say I went to "Joe's law school", since Widener was the only school with a convenient night program and I was a full time patent agent. But it has taken on a new cachet since I got into a limited seminar taught every semester to 12 students by Joe Biden. So I literally went to Joe's law school. But, that's why I married a Syracuse grad, I suppose. She does all of the thinking around here anyway.

But I digress...

"Associate"

This guy rocks. JD in 2007, and five, count 'em, five "areas of expertise" listed. That's awesome. What is that? Like two areas of expertise gained every four months of practice? It took me that long at my old firm to learn how to change the water in the cooler, which was the job assigned to each successive new hire.

Folks, when you hire a lawyer, always hire the one who identifies him or herself as an "expert". Nothing like an unbiased reference.

My absolute favorite use of "expert" in attorney advertising was about three or four months after the UDRP first started. Some guy had listed himself as an "expert" in the UDRP on his website.

Don't you hate it when 'trademark lawyers' dabble in UDRP proceedings?

By and large, I think many attorneys are really better than the run of the mill awful UDRP complaints. My theory is they are mostly written without an expectation there will be a response.

This one is technically well put together, but its the substance which is absolutely looney. I've seen some UDRP complaints that read like one of those federal inmate or mental patient pro se cases.

I LOVE the new membership level, Acro. There was a guy a while back who designed an RDNH "seal of distinction" for websites which won a UDRP and obtained an RDNH ruling.
Ari Goldberger absolutely rocks the house on RDNH rulings.

 

[domaingenius]

When the "good times" come back again, provided im
still alive by then, I would just love to construct a
UDRP complaint against say a "friends" domain along
certain lines so that can see which way a panelist
will rule, basically make up a complaint and just
see how twisted the decisions logic is.

DG

 

[Acquisition]

Well, thanks to this site having spider webs that can cover the universe, people can easily be found by googling domain names that lead to this forum.

I mean, let's say you own the dot com for cash. You could put Cash d- Calm in the title and it will still be spidered. This is why I only listed very few domains of our extended portfolio on this forum.

 

[jasdon11]

I normally don't mention pending cases, but this one is such a circus of stupid that their best move is to withdraw it.

Three attorneys signed off on the thing, too.

That'll be 500 bucks each, thank you very much!

 

[austinandrew]

I happen to own RDNH.com. If anyone wants to help develop it...


John - didn't the complainant in peaches.com argue the same thing, that it didn't matter if it was bad faith when the domain was registered, just that it was bad faith use later on?