Diablo.com

[pam]

Originally posted by GeorgeK
The domain was registered in 1995, not 2002. NSI has wrong creation dates. Check www.internic.net.

I'm currently fighting with Network Solutions over the dates of 9 domains which they now show were registered in 2002. I nicely asked them to put them back to the original date, and they wanted to know why. I explained that I advertise several sites as "the original (niche name here) site on the Internet" and the registration showing 2002 and not 1995 or 1996 makes me look like a moron

They agreed with me (on the phone) and promised to escalate it to 'engineering' to look at and hopefully change, and will call back on Monday with word.

They claim the dates were changed when they switched to an automated system last year but last month, I had to check the dates on a domain and it showed 1995 -- and it was documented in an adult forum where I was challenged to prove it was the original "niche name" site

 

[jberryhill]

"Answering may not have helped. James A. Carmody is the worst arbitrator. That ding dong ruled against me on buypc.com."

Carmody has improved from a run of questionable early decisions he issued, but he still issues a few head-scratchers from time to time. He did issue at least one default respondent win decision (porntrumps.com), and in this one he might have noticed that, at least on the surface, the domain name was registered to a "Diablo Systems". On the other hand, if that were an actual business entity, then one might have expected them to respond.

But, Carmody is inconsistent, although far from the worst.

Carolyn Marks Johnson's decision in freebie.com was ripped to shreds by a federal court, along with the complainant's trademark registration.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

WIPO doesn't have the power to "withdraw" a complaint if it has already resulted in a published decision; the ICANN rules require that all decisions be published.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you have this particular citation from ICANN's rules? I would like to read it.

 

[jberryhill]

The UDRP is not that long a document, come on...

It is in the Policy:

http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm

4. Mandatory Administrative Proceeding.
"j. [...] All decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision."

And in the Rules:

http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/uniform-rules.htm

"16. Communication of Decision to Parties

(b) Except if the Panel determines otherwise (see Paragraph 4(j) of the Policy), the Provider shall publish the full decision and the date of its implementation on a publicly accessible web site. In any event, the portion of any decision determining a complaint to have been brought in bad faith (see Paragraph 15(e) of these Rules) shall be published."

And if it is still not clear, you can check the further details under WIPO's supplemental rules.

The bottom line here is that the Policy requires publication of all decisions. The only party who can cause any portion of a decision to be redacted is the Panel which issued the decision.

If the parties later decide they don't want the decision published - too bad. Both parties to the newfoundland.biz decision requested non-publication, and the Panel said "no".

If a decision was rendered, then it gets published. And it stays that way.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

There is nothing I can do to prevent a terribly erroneous and flawed UDRP from being cited against me in future?

The only thing I can do is to rebut it if and when that happens?

If arbitration publication gives ammunition to over-reaching lawsuits or more phony UDRPs, that puts me at a disadvantage and seems like a TAKING from me. It feels like defamation.

Can a court order erase publication?

 

[jberryhill]

"Can a court order erase publication?"

Sure.

Do you have any realistic chance of obtaining such an order? No.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally posted by jberryhill:

Uh, no.

If the domain registrant didn't answer a complaint in federal court, then they would probably lose there also.
+++++++++++++++++

Sharpy had a good laugh at JB's above statement, but this is EXACTLY what is wrong with the legal system today.

Plaintiffs have a legal requirement to prove their cases in court. Incompetent judges who rubber stamp baseless complaints are a HUGE problem.

If judges can rubber stamp garbage, copying classic bad manufacturing practices of avoidance of independent analysis and quality control along the supply chain, certainly arbitration panelists can be guilty of the same.

It's kinda like someone who rubber stamps somebody else's quotation without any corresponding discernible brain wave activity..

 

[Beachie]

It seems that it's OK for the complainant to blatantly lie:

Respondent’s registration of the <diablo.com> domain name immediately after Complainant’s registration expired is evidence of bad faith registration and use with regard to Policy

Domain Name: DIABLO.COM
Registrar: ALLDOMAINS.COM INC.
Whois Server: whois.alldomains.com
Referral URL: http://www.alldomains.com
Name Server: NS11.WORLDNIC.COM
Name Server: NS12.WORLDNIC.COM
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Updated Date: 19-jun-2003
Creation Date: 12-sep-1995
Expiration Date: 11-sep-2005

They never owned it, yet state that it was registered immediately after they let it expire. You think the panel would at least check the facts, but it seems you can make up any old crap.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

This case is just so absurd.

If the complainant had a trademark that was truly so famous as to justify this decision, wouldn't they also be entitled to many other domains containing the word 'diablo?' But, have they gone after those names?

They just wanted the .COM domain because of its value.