They "won" by "losing" it?

[sasquatch]

Example:

A few years ago international pop icon Sting lost an UDRP case against the owner of Sting dotcom http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0596.html . Similar thing happen with the management company of Bogart estate who lost the UDRP case against the HumpfreyBogart dotcom owner http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/144631.htm.

Yet, both of these names TODAY belong to those complaintants who originally lost those UDRP cases.

I guess my question is how were they able to get these names after all?

A further court action? An out of court "deal" with the respondent owner? Something else?

I suppose Ari Goldberger should know a definite answer since he was involved in the latter case?

Thank you.

 

[Steen]

Could be either of the two above mentioned methods.

 

[hotdog_pk]

or maybe they snapped the names. although i find it mroe likely that it would have been an out of courst settlement, who knows?

 

[jberryhill]

Yet, both of these names TODAY belong to those complaintants who originally lost those UDRP cases.

There can be a lot of reasons for that situation which, if you look at other UDRP cases won by registrants, is fairly common.

For example, imagine what may have happened here:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0868.html

"The disputed domain name is "skipkendall.com"."

"Complainant is a professional golfer, better known as Skip Kendall. He turned professional in 1987, and has since achieved moderate success and attracted endorsement contracts. His name has not been registered as a trademark.

Respondent’s wife is Complainant’s sister. The underlying conflict between the parties appears to arise from a dispute over a loan. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 25, 2000, and now operates a web site about the loan dispute under the headline "Skip Kendall – PGA Golf Pro and Deadbeat(?) – You Be The Judge." The site contains no advertising and does not promote or offer the sale of any goods or services. The text of the site is limited to the Respondent’s statements about the loan dispute between Complainant and his sister."

The registrant prevailed in the UDRP dispute, and the domain name is now used for the official website of Skip Kendall.

It is nobody's business what transpired, but what do you think might have happened after that UDRP decision?

 

[websitedeveloper]

I reckon the complainants paid BIG bucks!

 

[Dave Zan]

Anything could happen via the ff:

1. Domain expired, was not renewed, was eventually deleted, &
got re-registered by the new owners.

2. Court cases were filed after losing the UDRP & the courts ruled
in their complainants' favor (meaning Sting & what have you).

3. Negotiations were conducted among the parties & were
resolved to everyone's mutual benefit, including transferring the
domain name to their namesake.

Who knows?

 

[Sharpy]

Skip paid the debt, and made kissy kissy with sis, has them over for a BBQ, on every Masters Sunday where they get drunk and talk woulda shoulda coulda.

 

[sasquatch]

I reckon the complainants paid BIG bucks!

How can they paid anything when one of the issues is that the respondent can not make a financial gain out of the name?

 

[jberryhill]

How can they paid anything when one of the issues is that the respondent can not make a financial gain out of the name?

The following quote is from the Federal Rules of Evidence, which applies to any federal lawsuit in the United States:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule408

Rule 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise

Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

 

[websitedeveloper]

How can they paid anything when one of the issues is that the respondent can not make a financial gain out of the name?

well "Sting" for example lost the UDRP case and now owns the domain... he either won it in court (I doubt it) or later offered the registrant BIG bucks for it

why do you state "the respondent can not make a financial gain out of the name"? I believe that of course the respondent can; they owned it, its theirs

 

[sasquatch]

why do you state "the respondent can not make a financial gain out of the name"? I believe that of course the respondent can; they owned it, its theirs

Not if the name in question is a celebrity domain (Humphrey Bogart)

 

[websitedeveloper]

so in general is it illegal to run a fan site that for example profits from using google's adsense program and affiliate links?