rl.com transfer (to ralph lauren) denied

[Brett Lewis]

A good, but close, decision. They took a big chance going with a single member panel. The significance of Google ads seems to turn on how famous or distinctive the trademark is. The panel in this case gave the respondent the benefit of the doubt, since RL is a generic two letter phrase.

 

[PRED]

A good, but close, decision. They took a big chance going with a single member panel. The significance of Google ads seems to turn on how famous or distinctive the trademark is. The panel in this case gave the respondent the benefit of the doubt, since RL is a generic two letter phrase.

yes,you are right. even though ralph lauren were taking the piss taking them to wipo.
wipo is no longer something that defends property rights. with a one member quack panel it can sometimes be a a daylight robber too.
gamble with the one quack for sure

 

[fab]

A good, but close, decision. They took a big chance going with a single member panel. The significance of Google ads seems to turn on how famous or distinctive the trademark is. The panel in this case gave the respondent the benefit of the doubt, since RL is a generic two letter phrase.

It seems that a 3 panel jury is accepted as safer. Any clear explanation as of why this is the case, or is it just the maths, i.e, less likely getting 2 fools than 1.

 

[acesfull]

Another case of UDRP ABUSE and corporate bullying.


UDRPabuse.com (unregistered at the time of this posting) - may be a good idea to feature these types of disputes.

 

[JuniperPark]

UDRPabuse.com (unregistered at the time of this posting) - may be a good idea to feature these types of disputes.

Now THERE is a good plan -- insult the very people who may be your judges some day.

 

[acesfull]

Now THERE is a good plan -- insult the very people who may be your judges some day.

You totally missed the point JuniperPark - the critique is on those that abuse the system in attempts to reverse hijack your domains. The decision, in this case, was correct.

 

[PRED]

I think a good idea. If someone wants to take time out to do, could be great.
Also a great resource for domainers & could double up as a hall of shame

 

[Gerry]

Perhaps a sub-category for legal issues to include the URDP and WIPO decisions and discussions. In reality, as boring reading as some can be, it provides a very good insight at the claims and defense on both sides. I know I have learned from these.

I am still confounded by the INC.MOBI decision and still am amazed at the "panel of one" concept.

 

[fab]

BTW, what is the penalty for reverse hijacking?

 

[Fearless]

BTW, what is the penalty for reverse hijacking?

Embarrassment :yes:

 

[acesfull]

Embarrassment :yes:

Not to mention A MUCH HIGHER PRICE (than pre-UDRP/reverse-domain hijacking attempt), if they want to negotiate to purchase the name.

 

[fab]

I noticed that in one of the wipo's here, there was a "reverse hijacking"claim, which the panel discussed. So I think it's something real, not only embarrasment

 

[jberryhill]

There is no penalty within the UDRP itself for RDNH - it is simply a moral victory. One could try to parlay that into a civil complaint for tortious interference with contract, defamation, or some other cause of action, but you never know what some judge might do once she or he gets their hands on the dispute. The other side could, of course, counterclaim for cybersquatting (see, e.g. the bouncing ball in the Virtual Works vw.net case a few years back).

Now THERE is a good plan -- insult the very people who may be your judges some day.

Heh... I've had half a mind to do something like that for a while now.

For a brief period a few years ago, I had a hall of shame at loserlawyers.com, but there were so many candidates bucking to get in that I gave it up.

If you really want to see looney litigation, check out the longstanding feud between Ralph Lauren and the US Polo Association (the people that ride horses and hit balls with hammers).

 

[Gerry]

If you really want to see looney litigation, check out the longstanding feud between Ralph Lauren and the US Polo Association (the people that ride horses and hit balls with hammers).

I have seen reference to not only the US Polo Association but also into the international teams (Prince Charles and the boys) as well as the water Polo. Yes, essentially anything with Polo on it, in it, spoken and written.

 

[droplister]

I was scared from cause the title was shortened to look like they won. I would probably have a brain aneurysm if I lost a ll.com

 

[Theo]

I have seen reference to not only the US Polo Association but also into the international teams (Prince Charles and the boys) as well as the water Polo. Yes, essentially anything with Polo on it, in it, spoken and written.

Marco Polo would roll in his grave.

 

[Focus]

Predooooooooooooooooooooooo
Mocoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Predoooooooooooo!
Moco!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hehehe

 

[DNQuest.com]

Whoever owned it first has the rights no matter what in a case like this, even if the owner DOES PROFIT from fashion related clicks thats imo a benenit of owning a short and valuable domain name! .

Still haven't learned yet I see....

 

[Brett Lewis]

It seems that a 3 panel jury is accepted as safer. Any clear explanation as of why this is the case, or is it just the maths, i.e, less likely getting 2 fools than 1.

With a three member Panel, you have a chance to nominate a panelist who you believe will actually read the papers and understand domain name and trademark law. You also have a say over the middle panelist appointed by WIPO or NAF. The standard thinking on the matter is that a single-member panel is less likely to give a respondent's arguments proper consideration.

 

[Brett Lewis]

It seems that a 3 panel jury is accepted as safer. Any clear explanation as of why this is the case, or is it just the maths, i.e, less likely getting 2 fools than 1.

With a three member Panel, you have a chance to nominate a panelist who you believe will actually read the papers and understand domain name and trademark law. You also have a say over the middle panelist appointed by WIPO or NAF. The standard thinking on the matter is that a single-member panel is less likely to give a respondent's arguments proper consideration.