You are so right. You can pose a really tough dilemma supported by both facts and "law" (used loosely in the context of UDRP matters) and STILL end up with a decision from left field based on cherry-picked facts supporting that Complainant actually sustained their burden of proving all 5-6 elements of the policy requirements. I am all for the transparency that DNQuest.com mentions above. If the briefs and evidence submitted were open to sunshine, it might encourage more careful methodical deliberation on the part of panelists. A system like PACER would be helpful. And since the UDRP system is primarily electronic, you'd think it wouldn't be tremendously difficult to set up...Makes you wonder about a lot of the "no brainer" decisions, doesn't it.
You can pose a really tough dilemma in your brief and think, "Now, I'd like to see how the decision is going to get around that", and the way they do it is by ignoring the issue.
________________________________________
Deborah A. Logan, Esq.
Intellectual Property, Internet & Technology Law
Email: [email protected]
www.DomainLegalCounsel.com