How relevant are previous decisions ??

[domaingenius]

I am sick and tired of companies trying to get a domain from me and saying "We refer to the WIPO decision against you in 2000" as if that 1 decision means I am therefore guilty of everything for life. It is a bit like the reason that they preclude mention of previous convictions in criminal trials, because a prior "conviction" does not mean the guy is guilty of every other future offence of the same type. The decision in 2000 was crap and yet it seems to be referred to time and time again to taint me.

DG

 

[draggar]

I am not a lawyer, I do not play one on TV nor do I look like one.

I don't think it is relevant. Each domain is different. It is not like a speeding case where the issues are consistent (speed limit, car's speed, driving conditions etc..). Just because someone lost XYZ.com in a WIPO case doesn't mean that everyone who has a domain should lose theirs right off.

It sounds more like scare tactics from uneducated lawyers.

Is your domain similar to the domain in the referred to case and is it the same or similar company?

 

[BELLC1]

You could always change your name ...

 

[domaingenius]

I am not a lawyer, I do not play one on TV nor do I look like one.

I don't think it is relevant. Each domain is different. It is not like a speeding case where the issues are consistent (speed limit, car's speed, driving conditions etc..). Just because someone lost XYZ.com in a WIPO case doesn't mean that everyone who has a domain should lose theirs right off.

It sounds more like scare tactics from uneducated lawyers.

Is your domain similar to the domain in the referred to case and is it the same or similar company?

Nope different names different companies. Without fail they always seem to raise same case.

DG

 

[jberryhill]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0445.html

Although some of the domain names registered by Respondent do raise questions, a bare list of domain names without evidence of how they are being used and whether they reflect bad faith, and a single adverse decision, do not make a pattern. Moreover, even if it were a pattern, and even if Respondent was found to have been a cybersquatter in another case, the question in this case is whether Respondent has cybersquatted this Domain Name. See e-Duction, Inc. v. Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2000-1369, concurring opinion (February 5, 2001) (decisions against same respondent in other actions is not necessarily relevant because “[e]ven a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes”).

 

[DNQuest.com]

You are right, it should not matter. Unfortunately, when it comes to the human mind and the use of judgement, immaterial things can sway a person. This is human nature. This why you need to pick your battles wisely.

PS- didn't realize pigs ate acorns., I wonder how many yhey need to eat in a day to stay so fat?

 

[domaingenius]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0445.html

Although some of the domain names registered by Respondent do raise questions, a bare list of domain names without evidence of how they are being used and whether they reflect bad faith, and a single adverse decision, do not make a pattern. Moreover, even if it were a pattern, and even if Respondent was found to have been a cybersquatter in another case, the question in this case is whether Respondent has cybersquatted this Domain Name. See e-Duction, Inc. v. Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2000-1369, concurring opinion (February 5, 2001) (decisions against same respondent in other actions is not necessarily relevant because “[e]ven a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes”).

Thanks for that useful quotation.

DG

 

[jberryhill]

Thanks for that useful quotation.

Especially if you are a blind pig.