Biased WIPO panelist

[Makis77]

i dotn if i can do it myself bt i m willing to pay for a lawyer and get together with other domainers that feel the same

 

[domaingenius]

i dotn if i can do it myself bt i m willing to pay for a lawyer and get together with other domainers that feel the same

OK lets see if we can take this forward. I am 100% serious so lets
get down to business. This really will be good for domainers all over as
if we succeed will put requirement on WIPO to appoint Panelists that have
appearance of impartiality . I have taken cases myself to Court of
Appeal in UK and won after 10 years, but im sorry am too tired to
pursue again so need a lawyer.

Any lawyers Enrico, John ?. How much $ can you afford though Makis ?

DG

Also need to decide which Court is best to take this matter to. Since
WIPO is in Switerland and I am in UK maybe need to issue Injunction in
UK High Court ?.

DG

 

[Makis77]

i think first we have to find a lawyer skilled enough to get this case, then pay him to write up a work case and send hes pricelist.
I m willing to pay mid $$$ for this only

European Court is the most appropriate one, i believe.

 

[mkellerman]

I heard John Berryhill talk at Traffic Down Under and he recommended opting for a 3 person panel, because in this case, the respondent and complainent can each have votes from a list of 5 panelists. This means that each side can choose a panelist who is likely to be sympathetic to them.

Yes, we all know WIPO is biased.

If a WIPO decision goes against you, you can appeal it in court. I beleive you can choose either your country of residence or the juristication of the registrar.

 

[domaingenius]

One other guy could consider for European work is Jim Davies who
is well versed in such matters
http://www.belldening.com/about_us/jim_davies_01.html

DG

This shows me how dodgy WIPO are. I tried calling them to follow up
on my email. Tried speaking to a particular person and when I said
"Hello its xxxx" they hung up phone. This shows me these people
are ****ing arrogant and have no intention to do things professionally.

DG

 

[PRED]

I heard John Berryhill talk at Traffic Down Under and he recommended opting for a 3 person panel, because in this case, the respondent and complainent can each have votes from a list of 5 panelists. This means that each side can choose a panelist who is likely to be sympathetic to them.

Yes, we all know WIPO is biased.

If a WIPO decision goes against you, you can appeal it in court. I beleive you can choose either your country of residence or the juristication of the registrar.

dude, all due respect to yourself and mr.berryhill etc but the 2 scenarios cost $$$$$

most domainers dont have so they have to go down the single pnel option. thats actually another area of conflict of interest.
by actually offering more panelists for more cash they are basically admitting the one man panel is sub stndard.
wipo scum

just want to say, great idea DG, but think cheapest way and to do anonymously and quickly would be to do site all about wipo. expossing cheating and conflicts etc
it would get traffic from domainers. we can all supply examples of cases we know bout and other stuff. do little pieces about panel members and how they are in bed with large corps as clients.

get privacy whois of course and put in another name rofl

could get some voting on there too, vote of no confidence and get delivered to eurpean parliament or something by electronic mail. have a name a nd shame bord. list things like when u rang, hanging up. names times etc

beat these *****es with the birch, they need a major expose

wipoexpose & wiposcandal dot com are free to reg

 

[domaingenius]

LOL Predator, Your right in most respects. I received brush off email from
WIPO so compose new email detailing point by point and precisely. I attached
the documents I gathered ,including pictures of Panelist meeting (a) the Complainant
representative and (b) WIPO representative , recently etc et and emailed
them to WIPO and the Panelist himself.

What will this cause with Panelist ?. I worded very carefully to day could
not prove bias but he did not appear impartiality as required by law.

DG

Sorry about those crap typos, again.

 

[Domagon]

Arbitration is not a court preceding. Lots of things don't apply / function as one might assume in UDRP, such as "discovery".

If one doesn't like the outcome of a UDRP decision, both sides still has the option of suing in a real court.

On a related note, jurisdiction matters for both UDRP and court cases.

Many people register domains based strictly on price and service, but neglect to take into account the jurisdiction of the registrar - that can be costly mistake. Ie. a person based in the U.S. should ensure the registrar they use is also based in the U.S.

Lastly, ICANNWatch is a site some here may find helpful ... http://www.icannwatch.org/

Ron

 

[InfoGuy]

IMO, a somewhat useful site for evaluating WIPO panelists is UDRPInfo.com. It offers the ability to quickly see the scorecard for each panelist under different scenarios - 1-member panel, 3-member panel, respondent defaults, etc. I say somewhat because the site hasn't been updated for a few years, but there are still a few hundred panelists in the database and some info to use to your advantage is better than none. It's interesting to note that the site is run by a law professor. When given a choice between choosing a panelist who is a commercial lawyer or law professor, go for the law professor. IMO, they're less likely to have conflicts of interest.

From my personal experience with a 3-member panel, I have no doubt that there are corrupt panelists, who will falsify facts to support their decisions for a domain transfer.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and these are only my personal opinions. If you require legal advice, you should seek qualified legal counsel.

 

[PRED]

IMO, a somewhat useful site for evaluating WIPO panelists is UDRPInfo.com. It offers the ability to quickly see the scorecard for each panelist under different scenarios - 1-member panel, 3-member panel, respondent defaults, etc.

thanks very much dude, bookmarked


heres another area theyre getting into. copyright law. rather than taking on the big sites etc, they always hit the small guy who's made a genuine mistake.
many people think images on google etc are free to use. especially if non commercial

read this!
:upset:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/27/internet-photography#history-byline

makes you want to not develop either. i have dozens of sites, all you need is one mistake, then the bully boys come in

there are loads of great free resources here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_image_resources
but even then you have to be careful as theres no guarantees, a genuine mistalke can be made, you're only taking someones word. certainly the u.s and the u.k are becoming like nazi states and the lawyers are the the little hitlers

 

[EnricoSchaefer]

We have had good luck getting panelists removed by showing bias. You need to make teh case to the UDRP panel administrator.

 

[Brett Lewis]

Yes. Lawyers sometimes have more success raising these types of issues. If you aren't represented, you stand a greater chance of being marginalized. Again, a very unfortunate truth.

Also, by the time the single member panelist is appointed, it's too late to opt for a three member panel.

 

[domaingenius]

We have had good luck getting panelists removed by showing bias. You need to make teh case to the UDRP panel administrator.

Well I tried twice and copied the Panelist in with my email to
WIPO but he refused to stand down. I guess the question that
it boils down to , does the fact that he acts for MS and MS sell to
the complainant give him the appearance of being open to bias ?.
Anyway we shall see what he decides as have no choice.

DG

Should add that he actually acts for MS in the Country that he is based
in and that the Complainant is located in, and has a close relationship
with MS having been an attorney for them.

DG

 

[PRED]

Well I tried twice and copied the Panelist in with my email to
WIPO but he refused to stand down. I guess the question that
it boils down to , does the fact that he acts for MS and MS sell to
the complainant give him the appearance of being open to bias ?.
Anyway we shall see what he decides as have no choice.

DG

Should add that he actually acts for MS in the Country that he is based
in and that the Complainant is located in, and has a close relationship
with MS having been an attorney for them.

DG

scandalous. if you lose, just go to newspaper over or something, embarrassment and bad press can only be a good thing for them. also make an offoicial complaint after, is there no watchdog at all or panel that complaints get addressed to about wipo, an independant?

 

[marcorandazza]

I think if you had kept your outrage focused on conflict of interest issue, you might have had more success. The fact that the panelist spoke on enforcing IP rights is not evidence of bias. Domainers need to learn that they are not on the opposite side of protection of intellectual property rights. Your claim that this was proof of his bias likely damaged your overall credibility.

On the other hand, the fact that the panelist has previously represented the complainant? Now THAT seems clearly improper. I'm a bit surprised that the panelist didn't recuse himself. I'd be curious to know who the panelist is (PM me if you don't want to post it here).

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Absolutely spot-on; it's hard to understand why the panelist would not recuse him/herself if the facts are as you outline (Certainly not for the $1,000 of the forum fee that goes to the panelist?).

I think if you had kept your outrage focused on conflict of interest issue, you might have had more success. The fact that the panelist spoke on enforcing IP rights is not evidence of bias. Domainers need to learn that they are not on the opposite side of protection of intellectual property rights. Your claim that this was proof of his bias likely damaged your overall credibility.

On the other hand, the fact that the panelist has previously represented the complainant? Now THAT seems clearly improper. I'm a bit surprised that the panelist didn't recuse himself. I'd be curious to know who the panelist is (PM me if you don't want to post it here).