UDRP Always "Transfer All" or "Deny All"?

[Rebies]

I have a UDRP case against me for 10 domains. Are decisions "transfer all" or "denied all"? Or can some domains be transferred, but others not? As a PURE example of something similar, I have

Amazon Store .com
Amazon River .com
Amazon Jungle .com
Amazon Brazil .com
Etc.

Yes, Amazon Store .com might be in bad faith, but the rest of the domains are purely legitimate and not in bad faith.

Also, is it wise to just conceded "Amazon Store" in this case (assuming I really don’t care about that one), but fight for the other domains which the complainant should have no rights to?

Or if it’s “transfer all” or “deny all” should I fight the entire thing saying the complainant has no rights going after the 9 other domains – thus is using Reverse Domain Hijacking to attain domains they have no right to at all?

Finally – if done on a 1 by 1 basis - I think the one primary domain would lose. I think all the others would win.

Thanks for pointers.

And no - the claim has nothing to do with Amazon or the example domains used above. I want to be sure nobody is confused by that.

 

[jberryhill]

Split decisions are pretty common.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0091.html


The disputed domain names are:

<yel.com>;
<yellweb.com>;
<ukyellowpages.com>;
<londonyellowpages.com>.

<...>

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names, <yellweb.com>, <ukyellowpages.com> and <londonyellowpages.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

The Complaint relating to the domain name <yel.com> is dismissed.


Out of the lot, there was only one that we cared about.

Guess which one.

 

[Rebies]

Thanks for the response John. Never seen a decision like this - but then again I've only seen maybe 20 cases before. By the way, I sent you a quick email. Guess I did not think to consult the professionals at first and was just going to defend the case on my own.

 

[BostonDomainer]

I've seen multi-cases but was not aware of split decisions... very good to know...

 

[Dave Zan]

Out of the lot, there was only one that we cared about.

Guess which one.

No need to "yel" this one out.

Imagine if there were 4 instead of 3 panelists and you get a split decision...