cybersquatting on DNF

[DotLeader]

k:

pornosquatter

 

[jberryhill]

"If I were in the wrong --how come I won the arbitration?"

For the reasons stated in the decision - the Complainant presented insufficient evidence of a trademark. They passed on the other two issues entirely:

"No such evidence has been provided by the Complainant in this case. The most the Complainant has done, beyond making the assertion that it is nationally and internationally known by the initials BHF, is refer to the 14 domain name registrations detailed in section 3 above, some of which include the letters BHF. "

However...

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0128.html

in respect of the Respondent’s claim that he registered <ndcs.org> with the words "Nude Dames Sex Chat" in mind, the Panel cannot accept the submission as plausible absent evidence establishing the Respondent’s dyslexia. The Panel refers to WIPO decision D2001-0957, British Heart Foundation v. Harold A. Meyer III, a case in which the Complainant was another UK charity and the Respondent was Harold A. Meyer III, the individual who is the administrative contact and technical contact in the present case, and who the Response claims is also the actual Respondent in the present proceeding. In the above case, the domain name in dispute was <bhf.org>, and the Complaint was dismissed as a result of the complainant failing to prove that it had common law trade mark rights in the acronym "BHF". The Panel notes that the at the time of the Administrative Proceeding the registrant of the domain name <bhf.org> was Harold A. Meyer III, but a WHOIS search reveals that the registrant is now "BustyHornyFemales.com".

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

JB,

You are citing false information which is defamation of my character.

That entire NDCS.org arbitration was withdrawn, and I have a letter to that effect from the complainant's attorney.

That scummy charity had hired a fellow WIPO panelist as their counsel, to improperly influence the supposedly neutral proceeding, thus violating the "neutral forum" which WIPO promises.

 

[Steen]

Originally posted by DotLeader
k:

pornosquatter

I think it was actually europorn


So the title would be EuroPornSquatter.

 

[Deleted member 4749]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
We don't need judges, nor hyperbole.

What DNF should do.. is become more professional, which helps everybody.

I think we don't need people who would care of anyone's business either.

No matter how bad anyone is, you have no right to censor his/her behavior.

As to cybersquatting, only accredited authorities can judje which case violates the law and which doesnt, and not you or anyone else.

:2 cents:

 

[DotLeader]

Originally posted by Coordinator Inc



I think we don't need people who would care of anyone's business either.

No matter how bad anyone is, you have no right to censor his/her behavior.

As to cybersquatting, only accredited authorities can judje which case violates the law and which doesnt, and not you or anyone else.

:2 cents:

very true and great points :goofy:

 

[DotLeader]

Originally posted by devildude8989


I think it was actually europorn


So the title would be EuroPornSquatter.

?

please stop sturring sh!t

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

No matter how bad anyone is, you have no right to censor his/her behavior.
+++++++

Not even the forum owner? Even if his board is turned into a den of thieves? To the point where he is potentially liable?

Of course, I disagree. I also believe that citizens should protest cybersquatting --as it hurts them. Interestingly, the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act has the word 'consumer' right in the title.

 

[DotLeader]

and i suggest all members of this forum protest dealing with pornosquatters

 

[Deleted member 4749]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
No matter how bad anyone is, you have no right to censor his/her behavior.
+++++++

Not even the forum owner? Even if his board is turned into a den of thieves? To the point where he is potentially liable?

Of course, I disagree. I also believe that citizens should protest cybersquatting --as it hurts them. Interestingly, the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act has the word 'consumer' right in the title.

I don't want to protest as I'm not a judje to decide who is thief or cybersquatter or who isn't. Neither do I want anyone to censor my posts. Any censorship by unauthorized parties will provocate confrontation.

Adam in no case can be held liable for anything happens on this forum unless he is directly involved. Any inderect relation to any unlawful transaction doesn't threaten neither Adam, nor the forum itself.
I also cannot understand why you now care of Adam, I thought he is fine taking care of himself.

Everyone else can take care of themselves, no need to protest. By protesting you will not improve anything.
If you want to protest, go protest against something reasonable - wls for example.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Maybe you are right, if Adam doesn't care, maybe nobody else should.

If that is what he wants DNF to become, a den of thieves, if he gives his stamp of approval to cybersquatting by not having a rule against it, and by allowing it, or by turning a blind eye to it when it is called to his attention --then maybe it is a moot issue.

Sorry for interrupting the stealing for my hypocritical diatribe. You may resume pilfering trademarks at the flag:

Ready.
Set.
GO!

 

[DotLeader]

:clown:

 

[Deleted member 4749]

Originally posted by DotLeader
:clown:

lol

 

[dtobias]

Redirecting an address that's the initials of a charity to a sleazy site because the charity wouldn't pay the "appropriate" ransom seems pretty scummy to me, even in cases where it's perfectly legal because the initials aren't actually trademarked. Due to the lack of a trademark, the panel made the right decision, in terms of the UDRP, by letting that domain stay with its registrant, but that doesn't necessarily make this registration and use moral (though this, of course, is an individual value judgment).

Each such case needs to be judged separately both legally and morally, which is why a blanket assertion that "cybersquatters" shouldn't post here can never be defined in sufficiently "black and white" terms to work.

 

[actnow]

So, Yacov is back. Or, is Coodinator his cousin?

 

[Deleted member 4749]

I'm back with my causin. Now... you get prepared.

=|;o)

 

[dtobias]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
DON'T REGISTER DOMAINS CONTAINING FAMOUS DISTINCTIVE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS.

You mean like tiffany.org, which I've had for years as the address of my fan site about the singer Tiffany, despite the fact that "Tiffany" is a famous registered trademark of the jewelry store?

 

[mole]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
Maybe you are right, if Adam doesn't care, maybe nobody else should.

Adam is not stupid nor jack-assed inexperienced to know the difference between pure spite and honest advise imho.

 

[Anthony Ng]

Originally posted by Coordinator Inc
Adam in no case can be held liable for anything happens on this forum unless he is directly involved. Any inderect relation to any unlawful transaction doesn't threaten neither Adam, nor the forum itself.

Well ... there were actually precedent cases that owners and office bearers of common carriers such as forums were held liable to content they deliver. As a moderator, I of course don't want to see anything close to that happens.

Back to the topic: my take is that we can look at this issue from two perspectives, legal and ethical.

I agree that it would be difficult to summarily judge whether a domain name is cybersquatting or not (that's why we need the courts or UDRP arbitration); but it would be safe to disallow sales of domain names against which disputes have been formally filed, not to mention those that already come with unfavorable ruling, in order to safeguard both this forum and its members (who are potential buyers) from future legal cosequences.

On the other hand, it is not particularly ethical to KNOWINGLY sell a domain name that has UDRP or legal complications. It may not be criminal (which actually depends on respective jurisdiction) or immoral (which then depends on individual conviction) but probably falls outside good business practice or professional codes. And as part of the industry, we shouldn't encourage that at all, to say the least.

But then, I would like to thank all interested parties for sticking closer to relevant discussion (in this case "cybersquatting on DNF") and refraining from any name-calling or foul-mouthing which doesn't quite contribute to anything constructively.

 

[StockDoctor]

Good points above nameslave.

Actually, I believe that once a UDRP is fliled, the registry locks the sucker up anyway. Don't know about every occasion though, and not sure if it impacts enom pushes etc.
Doc