Upcoming UDRP cases -- arcade.com and others

[Mr. Deleted]

It's a jungle out there.

hahah these people need to be stoped, how do we stop them?

 

[jberryhill]

hahah these people need to be stoped, how do we stop them?

It's not as if "these people" are an organized bunch. Most domain disputes are brought by one complainant, with one TM claim, who wants one domain name. That's why complainant's make the same sorts of errors time and time again. There are only a few attorneys who defend these things, so the typical situation in defended dispute is that the complainant's attorney is a first-timer versus one of the usual defenders who has seen an awful lot of shenanigans by complainants.

Nobody wins 'em all, though.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

on an unrelated note, you could change the pm allowed settings here so people don't PM you by mistake
http://www.dnforum.com/profile.php?do=editoptions

 

[Josh]

Lana.com is a nice win for Ari Goldberger...

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-1200.html

 

[GeorgeK]

The partybackgammon.com case finally got published:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-1123.html

It turns out there was a legal proceeding in England, and out of that both sides decided to transfer the domain name to PartyGaming, so the UDRP was inconsequential.

This is the last of the 9 cases in the initial post, so perhaps a new thread is in order to discuss newer upcoming cases.

 

[jberryhill]

This is the last of the 9 cases in the initial post, so perhaps a new thread is in order to discuss newer upcoming cases.

CPR ADR's case list is back up (it had been down, but nobody had noticed)

 

[Fearless]

There are several UDRP decisions which have been overturned in court - freebies.com and barcelona.com just to name two off the top of my head.

One of the first, buypc.com.

 

[jberryhill]

One of the first, buypc.com.

That was THE first udrp decision challenged in court, and was won by the domain registrant by default.

 

[Daniel NIC]

sorry - just a notice.

why not bringing .eu-registration to UDRP ?
http://www.eudomaindesaster.org
English translation in work

 

[bigboy222]

It looks like Berryhill's skills are slipping. He is 2 for 4 on his last 4 cases. I hope you were working for free, for the losers sake!

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/599041.htm
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/567037.htm

 

[actnow]

Bigboy, congratulations on your first posting. And, using it to be sarcastic.

I assume you also have all of the answers on Monday for the games played over the weekend.

You should change your name to - Monday Quarterback 222.

 

[Poker]

Bigboy, are we to believe that, should your client find themself unsatisfied with the results of your hard work that you always refund them in full, no matter what your investment of time, resources and energy?

 

[bigboy222]

Actually, I'm looking for a domain dispute lawyer and fell upon that info when doing some research. If anyone knows of one, please PM me.

 

[actnow]

Gee,

I know one that that you can scratch off of your list.

 

[Dave Zan]

It looks like Berryhill's skills are slipping. He is 2 for 4 on his last 4 cases. I hope you were working for free, for the losers sake!

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/599041.htm
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/567037.htm

So? You win some, you lose some.

You obviously don't know Dr. Berryhill, then.

 

[draqon]

bigboy222, you are an idiot. i'm not saying that as an insult, but rather stating a scientific fact.

 

[jberryhill]

Trademark disputes are fact-intensive, and outcomes in UDRP cases are determined on their own facts, along with being highly panelist-dependent on some issues.

One of the ways that doctors and hospitals boost their "success rate" with certain types of medical procedures is by refusing to take patients which do not have a higher than average chance of being successfully treated. This same principle applies to attorneys, and it is one of the reasons why attorney advertising regulations prohibit attorneys from advertising based on statistical outcomes in certain kinds of cases. There are attorneys who nonetheless advertise on such a basis. If you think you have found an attorney who wins every time, then what you have found is a dishonest attorney.

UDRP proceedings are decided in favor of the complainant more than 80% of the time. That is the raw, hard fact. Furthermore, since that statistic was published, both the NAF and WIPO appear to have rotated out certain panelists who were perceived as respondent-friendly, and have rotated-in quite a few new panelists, as NAF and WIPO primarily compete on the basis of attracting complainants.

There are some instances where I have provided a sober assessment that a potential client has very poor chances of success. I do not provide false optimism in those instances, and quite often suggest that they would be better off saving their money. You'd be surprised how often people can become downright angry with me when I tell them that I don't think they have a good chance of proceeding.

In other instances, a potential client may decide that a defense is worthwhile despite a less than average probability of succeeding. Many issues in UDRP proceedings are not cut-and-dried, but no amount of persuasive skill is going to change the facts. I have even been asked to take cases not even for the purpose of winning, but merely to extend the time that a domain registrant may use for continuing to use the name and/or make preparations for transitioning to another domain name.

You will note, for example, in one of the cases you cited, one of the panelists not only disagreed with the other two, but would have found reverse-domain hi-jacking on the part of the complainant. That's quite a wide spread of opinion on the panel. Had it been a single-panelist proceeding with only that panelist, the decision would of course have been the opposite of the majority opinion. That's just the way it goes. The UDRP is a binary outcome process, and I treat wins in "easy" cases as a bonus. Once you turn a decision over to a third party, anything can happen.

I work on an hourly rate basis, and do not take cases on a contingent fee basis. If there are other attorneys who have the luxury of unpaid time with uncertain outcomes, then by all means you should select such an attorney.

However, I do not profess to win every case, nor have I ever made such a claim. I do counsel potential clients of their chances based on experience with similar cases, and the decision to proceed is entirely up to them. In situations which I perceive to be hopeless, I do in fact suggest that the potential client may want another attorney or may seek an alternative to defending the claim. But I have never, ever, counseled a prospective client to the effect that I am some sort of miracle worker or that they have a guaranteed win. No attorney can promise that, and if one does you should run in the other direction.

Every defense has a realistic probabilty of being unsuccessful. I have defended dozens of UDRP and ACPA cases, and the laws of probability apply to me as they do to everyone else.

It is interesting that you state I am "2 for 4" in 4 recent cases, but only post links to the ones in which the defense was not successful. Of course, on can produce various ratios depending on how many cases, or what time window, one considers. You might as well post that I had a 0% success rate on the day of any particular adverse decision.

 

[DNQuest.com]

It looks like Berryhill's skills are slipping. He is 2 for 4 on his last 4 cases. I hope you were working for free, for the losers sake!

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/599041.htm
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/567037.htm

I think we should a probation period for new signups.... No posting until they have reave at minimum 500 threads. It think that could stop some of the nonsense that have been posted recently by newbies.

 

[jberryhill]

I think we should a probation period for new signups

Naw... If someone wants to pay Adam for the privilege of signing up to take a poke at me, that's fine. Hey, I've even conceded an argument to you, I believe, in this forum.

It's no secret that there are certainly those in the world who have a problem with an attorney that sticks up for domainers in the UDRP, in court, in the ICANN process, and in litigation against ICANN on the Verisign settlement issue. For reasons not worthy of discussion, is it surprising that concurrent with the Wellington ICANN meeting and some other recent events that someone felt a need to join DNForum and "take Berryhill down a peg"?

No, that's not surprising in the least. I expected it sooner, and I expect we'll see more as certain ugly situations turn uglier.

 

[Josh]

You're a good lawyer, John.

To add to what you said, your work is NOT just what people see in the UDRP decisions. It's also the behind-the-scenes responses to C&D letters and positioning that cause some cases to never even be brought. And an array of other things as well.