Interesting tidbit from a decision...

[DNQuest.com]

http://wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1675.html

The Panel is aware that what the Respondent has done does not fall clearly within any of the instances of bad faith registration and use set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, but it is well-established that that paragraph does not constitute an exhaustive list of what constitutes bad faith registration and use for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

Basically saying, even though the criterea is spelled out, no all of it is spelled out in the policy. I don't recall reading a determination worded as such which expands "bad faith" application of the policy beyond what is written.

 

[katherine]

Also it is clear that having an established squatting track record with WIPO does not help

 

[Theo]

So are there hidden criteria that we need to know about?

 

[katherine]

Hmm basically the panel has always had some discretion in determining the element of bad faith so I guess it's nothing new actually.

 

[DomainsInc]

"The Respondent had been associated with the Complainant prior to registering the Domain Name and knew of the Complainant’s rights in respect of the PREVISITE mark."

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Sometimes the appearance of something is just as bad as the actual thing.

 

[Dloganesq]

That is an interesting tidbit. It just goes to show that nothing is set in stone with regard to these decisions.

And the other posters are correct. The WIPO (as well as the NAF) panel has the discretion to determine what is bad faith and is not necessarily restricted to the specific fact patterns set forth in previous decisions. Outside of those two tribunals, factual instances of bad faith are fairly fluid and definition of the same varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

As a general matter though, most courts and other judicial tribunals will consider “bad faith” to be conduct that is unreasonable or unfair and may or may not require some showing of willfulness. After looking at the decision though, it certainly does appear that there was some semblance of willfulness on the part of the Respondent. Among other things, he admitted that he had a prior relationship with the Complainant, knew of Complainants’ trademark rights and had previously registered another domain using a third party’s trademark. It looks as though the panel looked at the totality of circumstances and found bad faith.

Deb Logan
Deborah A. Logan, Esq.
Intellectual Property, Internet & Technology Law
[email protected]

 

[Dave Zan]

Welcome aboard to DNF, Deb. No malice intended but...finally, a female lawyer
who's versed in domain legal disputes!

The "domain name disputes" link in your site's not working, BTW.

 

[Fearless]

Welcome aboard to DNF, Deb. No malice intended but...finally, a female lawyer
who's versed in domain legal disputes!

The "domain name disputes" link in your site's not working, BTW.

There are plenty female lawyers versed in domain legal disputes. Every one I've seen represented the plaintiff.

Case in point http://www.domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/945049.htm

 

[Dloganesq]

Thanks. Dan- I appreciate the welcome. With all of the impressive voices here, I have been reticient to join in. In fact, I think John Berryhill is in the same locale that I am, though I've never had the pleasure of meeting him. Hope to do so soon. My links need work, I know. It is on my "To Do" list when I get a bit of free time to finally get that finished.
Deb
Deborah A. Logan, Esq.
Intellectual Property, Internet & Technology Law
[email protected]

Point taken, fearless! But I have to say- you take the clients who present to you. I'd not have a problem on the defense side either.
In fact, my early litigation years were largely spent on the defense side and I am presently lead counsel on the defense side in an infringement case right now. I only take cases where I feel I can work with the client side-by-side- plaintiff or defense side, no matter. Life is too short to take on matters where you represent an unpleasant person or have to prosecute or defend a matter that doesn't motivate me. A simple way to live and work...
Deb
Deborah A. Logan, Esq.
Intellectual Property, Internet & Technology Law
[email protected]

 

[Fearless]

I've tried to analyze why there are so many female lawyers involved in cases against domainers and hardly any defending. I figure since the vast majority of domainers are male, the female lawyers enjoy squashing male domainers.

 

[Dloganesq]

I've tried to analyze why there are so many female lawyers involved in cases against domainers and hardly any defending. I figure since the vast majority of domainers are male, the female lawyers enjoy squashing male domainers.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. I don't know how you figured it out since we have tried to keep it a closely held secret among us all... I won't even touch your "squashing" comment. Well, actually I can't--I've already said too much-- who knows what would happen to me if I revealed more.

BTW, if you have a case that needs defending, just drop me a note. There are certain exemptions I can apply for through the sisterhood of domainer torturers to defend you. (I haven't graduated to fancy icons yet) I clearly need more coffee...

Deb
Deborah A. Logan, Esq.
Intellectual Property, Internet & Technology Law
[email protected]

 

[jberryhill]

http://wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1675.html



Basically saying, even though the criterea is spelled out, no all of it is spelled out in the policy. I don't recall reading a determination worded as such which expands "bad faith" application of the policy beyond what is written.

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm

the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

The general concept of "bad faith" is a longstanding principle of equity. The UDRP spells out examples of bad faith, but "without limitation". That's legalese for "just because I am writing a list of examples does not mean I am limited to the things on the list".

All of the things on the list, however, are examples of what is called "specific intent" - that is a knowing and intentional activity.

 

[Fearless]

There are certain exemptions I can apply for through the sisterhood of domainer torturers to defend you.

Did the sisterhood send you into the lion's den?

 

[Dloganesq]

Did the sisterhood send you into the lion's den?

Well, no- I volunteered after I got the memo... Oops! Now I'm in big trouble...

(I'm enjoying your sense of humor here, Fearless. Though we have appeared to have strayed off topic...)

Deb
________________________________________
Deborah A. Logan, Esq.
Intellectual Property, Internet & Technology Law
Email: [email protected]

 

[Fearless]

As long as you pledge allegiance to mobee and accept Pinky Brand as your personal savior, you can stay.

 

[jberryhill]

Only the best IP lawyers are in Southeastern PA.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Fearless, I would suggest that you have done Deb a moderate injustice. Regardless of her predilection for male or female clients/cases and which side of the bench she stands, I personally welcome yet another erudite member who no doubt has a great deal to offer the forum. However I know you jest somewhat

 

[Dloganesq]

Only the best IP lawyers are in Southeastern PA.

John-
Surely no one could argue with that! (Hope there aren't any other IP attorneys lurking around here with thoughts of relocating)
Deb
P.S. Thanks for the welcome as well, aZooza.
________________________________________
Deborah A. Logan, Esq.
Intellectual Property, Internet & Technology Law
Email: [email protected]

 

[Dale Hubbard]

John-
Surely no one could argue with that! (Hope there aren't any other IP attorneys lurking around here with thoughts of relocating)
Deb
P.S. Thanks for the welcome as well, aZooza.
________________________________________
Deborah A. Logan, Esq.
Intellectual Property, Internet & Technology Law
Email: [email protected]

You're welcome Deb. However the best IP lawyers remain in the United Kingdom. Now I'm having a pop Also, we dropped the 'Esq.' quite a while ago, as it pertains to 'legal eagles'. It used to be a titular mannerism unrelated to your profession in years passed. When I used to live in WA, there were many signs at the entrance to housing communities proclaiming 'No Solicitors'. Funny stuff.