Dissenting panelist on RuggedSwitch.com and RuggedRouter.com

[draggar]

Interesting pair of WIPO (I'm guessing they filed two separate cases to greater their chances of getting at least one of the names?)

RuggedSwitch.com:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0119.html

RuggedRouter.com:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0130.html

Two companies sell a similar product. One has the domains, the other has a design mark (image / logo).

Panelist Diane Cabell dissented on both decisions stating that a "design mark" is different from a "trade mark" yet the other two panelists think that they have the same legal stance. (If this is the case then I am going to get a bunch of design marks and file some high end WIPOs).

I also find it hilarious that they VERY QUICKLY threw in the decision for RuggedSwitch.com in the case for RuggedRouter.com claiming that the respondent has a history of this - plus some other cases for domains that are technically generic and fit both companies.

In both cases the domain name was registered BEFORE the US trademarks were filed, too.

The respondent was in business before the complainant.

I think I'm going to call reverse hijacking on this one.

 

[marcorandazza]

Cabell does some wonderful work in the copyright arena with creative commons. Unfortunately, it seems to have infected her head. She's a sleazy panelist with either zero understanding of basic trademark principles or she'd just rather keep getting picked by respondents for $750 per pop (I'm sure that creative commons doesn't pay very well) than exercise any of her knowledge in an ethical manner.

 

[denny007]

Cabell does some wonderful work in the copyright arena with creative commons. Unfortunately, it seems to have infected her head. She's a sleazy panelist with either zero understanding of basic trademark principles or she'd just rather keep getting picked by respondents for $750 per pop (I'm sure that creative commons doesn't pay very well) than exercise any of her knowledge in an ethical manner.

So you DO agree with these decisions I suppose...

 

[marcorandazza]

I do. The respondent was a scumbag who registered a domain name, not for its generic value, but to divert customers from a mark holder to its competitors. Cabell is an absolute disgrace. At least Sorkin occasionally tries to "make it look good."

I don't think these dissents have any value to anyone except Ms. Cabell, who issued them more likely to wave her arms around so that more scumbags will pick her as a panelist - thus supplementing her public-interest income with a few more $750 checks for serving as a panelist.

She should stick to her creative commons work. Despite my absolute venom for her as a UDRP panelist, she's my hero when it comes to copyright issues.