WIPO - bad flip-flops on the 3-letter issue

[DaddyHalbucks]

JB is correct about the importance of assessing the mental state of persons in disputes and in situations of potential criminality. Much of the law revolves around the concept of INTENT.

JB, as far as the "mental state" of Garry is concerned, maybe you want to lighten up, because you are making him sound like a real nutcase.

 

[jberryhill]

A tip for you - when using Latin, only use common phrases - or give the meaning.

I'll make a deal with you:

I'll stop using Latin, if you stop using Gibberish.

 

[namedropper]

I do not want new members to think I am dangerous uninformed person

Then you should take the advice of Mark Twain:

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

 

[Garry Anderson]

Blinking heck John.

It must be me - you are very intelligent person - my grammar is not best in world so perhaps I have not explained well.

However - I am quite sure you understand and are being obtuse.

I find your comparing UDRP with terrible criminal acts of rape and murder quite tasteless (perhaps for spin).

These are acts of attack committed against an actual specific subject - not something that is possibly nothing to do with them (i.e. similar name).

Like you saying, "ANN is a whore" - some Ann comes out woodwork and says, "You mean me - I want damages". Of course, no abuse is committed with domain - the name is simply the same.

Okay - so be it - using murder - let me explain it this way - so everybody can understand:

Say you want to kill me :-(

a) You buy a flight to UK.

b) You have bad intent - but have committed NO UNLAWFUL ACT.

c) You may bottle out and not go through with the murder.

d) It first and foremost requires an unlawful act.

e) Even *attempted* MURDER still requires act of attempt to be shown with the INTENT.

However, this does not stop the police warning you that you are under suspicion - further making a crime less likely.

If you still do not get it - a b c:

a) Buying a flight is analogous to buying a domain name.

b) Flight can be used for any business or pleasure purpose - legal or illegal.

c) Domain can be used for any business or pleasure purpose - legal or illegal.

Even INTENT to supply illegal drugs - still requires possession of illegal drugs.

Even *attempted* RAPE still requires act of attempt to be proven along with the INTENT.

Etc.

"To say that "registration and use in bad faith" is an "act" is incomplete, and thus incorrect, because it is a statement of action coupled with a mental state. If the action is established, then all that matters is the mental state."

What pills are you on?

Again - It first and foremost requires an unlawful act.

Registration is not unlawful - true or false?

There has to be INTENT to commit unlawful act - true or false?

So - when they have subjective and UNPROVEN intent alone - what unlawful act is being committed with the domain name against the SPECIFIC trademark that has made the complaint?

Certainly not infringement of mark.

Failing that, what unlawful act is being committed with the domain name against any unspecified trademark?

Certainly not infringement of mark.

Even corrupt UDRP says, "being USED in bad faith" NOT this risible "INTENT to use in bad faith".

By the way -

June 5: comment to Ari about lawyers making lots of money from this corrupt unlawful UDRP - and pointing out that Ari proved 80% try overreach their trademark on his cases.

June 11: pointing out to Ari that he would not answer these simple questions. Perhaps afraid or he could not answer.

OH - I JUST THOUGHT - he could be like you - with same "threshold level of caring about responding" ;-)

June 19: nice try John ;-)

Looks like I was annoyed at the time though - perhaps I hadn't taken my tablets to suppress dangerous madness [:]-[

You will see this post was in direct response to different subject: "Registrar Reserved names in the .info Sunrise process"

Read the post - it refers to "The people at Afilias and ICANN also abridge the common persons choice of words with this unlawful scheme"

Note - it then goes on to talk about lawyers (nobody specific).

"They (the people above - Afilias and ICANN - that corrupt law) and tight-lipped Lawyers are all pathetic cowards."

This confirms (certainly more strongly) what I believed above, "all lawyers somewhat self-serving in desire to keep some things hidden" - e.g. corrupt UDRP biase.

This includes you and Ari - sorry if that hurts your feelings.

Perhaps - you will admit now that UDRP is corrupt process - designed specifically to aid trademark overreach?

Did not think so.

"You can add "liar" to your curriculum vitae".

Sorry John - I never knowingly lie on these forums - I try to be honest in the utmost.

Garry> "John - firstly, I do not want new members to think I am dangerous uninformed person"

John> "I certainly do want them to know that. I thought I made that clear".

Since when have you been against free speech?

Or is it just my opinions you do not like and want people to ignore?

I need a rest - so will be offline for a while.

Do not worry - I have not turned into chicken-livered pathetic weasel coward.

I will be back to respond - know you will miss me

Gosh - I do hope not to have hurt anybodies feelings ;-)

DaddyHalbucks> JB is correct about the importance of assessing the mental state of persons in disputes and in situations of potential criminality. Much of the law revolves around the concept of INTENT. JB, as far as the "mental state" of Garry is concerned, maybe you want to lighten up, because you are making him sound like a real nutcase.

I like JB too

Intent is no good without unlawful act.

I hope you are not ganging up on me :-(

Dan>"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Thanks Dan - but if everybody took that advice - nobody would speak ;-)

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Garry --the world's first absurdtor-- wrote:

Perhaps - you will admit now that UDRP is corrupt process - designed specifically to aid trademark overreach?

Did not think so.

"You can add "liar" to your curriculum vitae".
+++++++++++++++++++

Just because someone does not agree with your opinion.. doesn't make them a liar.

 

[jberryhill]

It is not my opinion that he made the same accusations against Ari on a more widely-read forum.

Clean up in aisle 5.

 

[David G]

The Panel said this: "All the cases mentioned related to domain names having a meaning and used in connection with a Website where the contents were consistent with such meaning. Iin the <kis.com> case, the Panel found that legitimate interest in the domain name was established, as it was used as the address for its Korean Information Site, which perfectly describes the nature and objective of his site and which “resolve to a page entitled “Korean Information Site” featuring hyperlinks to various websites, which contain information about Korea and Asia”; and that “Respondent’s interest in the Domain Name <kis.com> appears to be unrelated to Complainant’s trademark”. In the present case, the Complainant does not explain what is the meaning of the three letters “sfr” and does not provide any evidence of the legitimacy of its choice of the three letters “sfr” in relation to the Web content of the page displayed after typing “www.sfr.org”, As mentioned above, in the present case, Complainant does not explain what the meaning of the three letters “sfr” is and does not provide any evidence of the legitimacy of its choice of the three letters “sfr” in relation to the web content of the page displayed after typing “www.sfr.org”.

Sorry Garry Anderson, after reading the entire case I agree with Mr. Berryhill and the Panel who I believe did an outstanding overall job and went into excellent detail giving the respondent as much consideration and leeway as possible. In fact, it seems they were very even-handed and unbiased in the case and went beyond the call of duty to be fair.

It is obvious the respondent lost the case due to not showing legitimacy or using the 3 letters in conjunction with a good faith offering of goods and services since it appears they did not use SFR as an acronym identifying a service, product or meaning of the 3 letters. Due to that the Panel had little choice but to rule against respondent. If you read between the lines the Panel all but said if the letters were used to identify an actual offering (rather than merely a search income page) the ruling would have been against the plaintiff.

P.S. Hey Garry, is this really you? http://www.garryanderson.co.uk/main.htm

 

[tnt]

After plowing through all this, it seems to me that AOL and IBM may have started as acronyms, but at this point, they're as much a trademark as "Kodak." That is, they could be considered unique, "made-up" words. I wouldn't think a person could get very far trying to sell Kodak Air Conditioners, or AOL Air conditioners.

On the other hand, take my favorite three letter acronym, "TNT." It's used in hundreds of different ways, everything from the "TNT" television network to the TNT express shipping company to "T 'n' T Pies" (I see them every time I go to the local minimart.) I think TNT would -- should -- have considerably less protection. I don't think most people -- if any -- are going to think of TNT Air Conditioners as having any connection to either the television network, the shipper or the pie company.

 

[jberryhill]

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. Not all trademarks are of equal strength or breadth, which is why trademark disputes are nearly always fact intensive.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Sorry for being so long in getting back

Before starting, John has previously said on this thread, "In a civil dispute, neither party is presumed to be "innocent" or "guilty". The two parties put on their evidence, and the dispute is determined based on a preponderance of the evidence."

However, UN WIPO see UDRP quite differently - without the complainant having to prove infringement, "The respondent is offered the opportunity to defend itself against the allegations".

http://arbiter.wipo.int/center/faq/domains.html

Fact: Clear corrupt bias in process - UN WIPO aid and abet overreach.

I know the difference between facts and opinion.

"preponderance of the evidence" - don't make me laugh - where is complainants requirement to provide evidence of infringement?

John says also, "Obviously if a party does nothing, they are going to be at an automatic disadvantage".

Panelists KNOW that all initials have untold legal uses.

John has admitted that all trademarks, including those held by 'International Business Machines' and 'America Online' cannot precludes anybody else from using the three letters for any other business.

Clear corrupt bias in process - panelists assist in the overreach.

Now to recent comments:

JB> It is not my opinion that he made the same accusations against Ari on a more widely-read forum.

Only the very same comments that I make about ALL lawyers - the OPINION that you are afraid to admit some FACTS (e.g. UDRP is corrupt process designed to help overreaching corporations circumvent the law on infringement test).

Do you know the difference between facts and opinion ;-)

I honestly admire Ari's work almost as much as I admire yours John

RealNames, respondent need not showing legitimacy - the case should not have been brought - as respondent was not infringing upon complainants business.

Learned Panelist Prof. David E. Sorkin knew this was clearly overreach - like stated, the case should not have been brought - and even our Dan recognised "the intials have inherent legitimate uses up the wazoo".

http://www.sork.com/

Yes - that is really me in 1997.

I original used the Internet to warn prospective patients of the cover-up in the number of errors in surgery.

Along with having the cover-up over the passing of vCJD in blood proven - we have the cover-up of the errors in surgery proven as well.

As will the cover-up in corruption on the topic under discussion eventually be proven ;-)

TNT - the initials AOL could be used by Air Outfit Limited to sell Air Conditioners.

 

[Garry Anderson]

M'Lud ;-) - the MOST IMPORTANT FACT being five factors are examined in EVERY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ACTION. After similarity of name comes "the similarities of the goods and services involved (including an examination of the marketing channels for the goods)"

http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html

UN WIPO and our Learned Friends are all very familiar with the test for trademark having to prove similarity of goods or services in likelyhood of confusion - aren't they JB?

UN WIPO prove themselves corrupt - they say:

"In the event that a trademark holder considers that a domain name registration infringes on its trademark, it may initiate a proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)."

And yet - without complainant having to show any evidence of infringement on "the similarities of the goods and services involved" - the respondent has to "defend itself against the allegations".

UN WIPO and all lawyers know that (whether civil or criminal) complainant (or prosecution) has burden of proving case.

It is beyond doubt - UN WIPO has been exposed - clear dishonest corruption.

I believe CASE PROVEN your Honour.

 

[tnt]

I defer to jberryhill on all legal issues, of course, since he's a lawyer and he's just famous in the domain issue.

I'm thinking of things less as a legal issue and more as a language issue. Whether those two will ever -- or should ever -- meet is for the lawyers, courts and legislatures.

I still disagree that are untold uses for ALL initials. From a language point of view, there do exist three letter words -- SEW comes to mind. I doubt many would instantly think of them as initials, but I happen to know someone who does indeed have those initials.

And what about 4 letters? I know many people with two middle names, thus giving them 4 initials.

And finally, at this point in time, even though AOL can stand for a zillion things, I can't imagine a company calling itself AOL without hoping the public makes a connection with America Onliine. They can have a three word name that starts with those initials, but to try and trade off that as AOL doesn't seem right.

Using your example of Air Outfit Limited wouldn't be a problem, but if they start to advertise as AOL Air Conditioners, I think there's trouble ahead, even though they're two seperate lines of products.

I stand by my point that language usage would point to AOL being a word in and of itself, being in such common usage -- walk down the street and ask a computer literate person "what's your AOL screen name?" and they won't have to spend time puzzling out what you're asking (even if they don't have an account, they'll just say, "I don't have one of those.")

Again, all of this is from the perspective of a language student and not a legal professional.


Anyways, I have a problem with the domain name system in general. Stuff like the different extensions having the same names. And why shouldn't I be able to file a landrush application for TNT -- I don't have a trademark, but most of the people who know me, know me as TNT. But now we're getting silly -- what about all the people who have those initials?

It's probably too late, but there has to be a better way to do things.

 

[Garry Anderson]

TNT> "Using your example of Air Outfit Limited wouldn't be a problem, but if they start to advertise as AOL Air Conditioners, I think there's trouble ahead, even though they're two seperate lines of products."

Who do you know then, that thinks Internet Service Providers would manufacture Air Conditioners?

Although, I entirely 100% agree with any premise that greedy corporations would like world dominance with exclusive use of 'THEIR' trademark.

Even JB has admitted that AOL cannot preclude anybody else from using the same three letters for any other business.

As you "defer to jberryhill on all legal issues" - I will take it we are all in agreement ;-)

"...most of the people who know me, know me as TNT. But now we're getting silly -- what about all the people who have those initials?"

When hearing the initials TNT applied to business - I think of the world leading provider of express delivery services.

Had you TNT.com or .info or .newTLD - should you give it up to them?

Indeed - why should anybody be prevented from using the initials TNT for other lawful purposes?

"It's probably too late, but there has to be a better way to do things."

Guess why big business do not want you to know which domains are owned by trademark holders - also why lawyers and WIPO support them.

The answer is very simple.

 

[jberryhill]

Even JB has admitted that AOL cannot preclude anybody else from using the same three letters for any other business.

Garry, how about if you keep to posting your own opinions instead of mischaracterizing the opinions of others?

After all, Garry has never denied being a cocaine dealer. Isn't that right, Garry?

 

[tnt]

This is getting to be what my lawyer used to call "a pissing contest."

Would the average consumer confuse AOL Air Conditioners with AOL the online company? Who knows? Would the average consumer confuse Kodak Air Conditioners with the camera and film company? Who knows? Late night infomercials for all manner of useless and often dangerous stuff do big business.

Still, my main point isn't being addressed: why is that three letters *must* be considered initials with an infinite variety of uses, and apparently could not possibly be a word in and of itself -- a made-up, very trademarkable (is that a word?) word like "KODAK."

That's all I'm really asking.

PS When I see the initials "TNT," besides thinking of myself, I think of Turner Network Television, elsewise known as the TNT channel. And I used to be surprised to go to tnt.com and get the delivery service. On the other hand, tnt.tv does lead to Turner Network Television.

 

[jberryhill]

I think of the high-explosive, trinitrotoluene, in connection with TNT. I'm not sure I get your "main point", other than to simply say that some combinations of three letters are very strongly associated with a single entity and some combinations of three letters are not. There is just not a "one size fits all" answer to how three-letter domain disputes should be decided.

You may find this interesting:

http://www.tnn.com/media/default.htm

 

[Garry Anderson]

Garry> Even JB has admitted that AOL cannot preclude anybody else from using the same three letters for any other business

John> Garry, how about if you keep to posting your own opinions instead of mischaracterizing the opinions of others?

Dear John, you really are my favourite forum person - you make me laugh so much it hurts - have you heard that expression involving the pot and kettle ;-)

To make it perfectly clear to one and all:

Previously, in this thread, I said, "However, I am sure you are not saying, "that these trademarks are held by 'International Business Machines' and 'America Online' precludes anybody else from using the three letters for any other business"."

To which you replied, "And you are correct, the material you put in quotes above, prefaced by "I am sure you are not saying" is, indeed, material which I did not say. Congratulations on learning to read."

We both know about overreach (you moreso than I) and you did not deny statement - whereas I deny being a cocaine dealer (or a user - or knowing anybody involved in illegal drugs or any illegal activity whatsoever)

 

[jberryhill]

Previously, in this thread, I said, "However, I am sure you are not saying, "that these trademarks are held by 'International Business Machines' and 'America Online' precludes anybody else from using the three letters for any other business"."

To which you replied, "And you are correct, the material you put in quotes above, prefaced by "I am sure you are not saying" is, indeed, material which I did not say. Congratulations on learning to read."

Denial of a proposition does not imply agreement with some other proposition.

When you deny being a cocaine dealer, I am sure you are NOT denying that you are a child molester.

So, there you have it. Surely you agree that you have not denied being a child molester.

Saying that X does not preclude anybody else from doing Y, is not logically equivalent to agreeing that X permits anybody (or everybody) to do Y. The permitted range of circumstances in which someone may do Y may be very, very narrowly constrained.

I will not state, in the infinitude of possible circumstance, that anybody is precluded from using "AOL" or "IBM". I will definitely state that hardly anybody would be permitted, mostly everybody would be precluded, and it is extremely difficult to conceive of circumstances where anyone relevant in the dnforum audience would be permitted. That may be "preclusion" as a practical matter here.

But you take denial of one proposition to mean affirmation of a proposition which is not a mutually-exclusive converse proposition. And that is simply not a valid technique of argument.

Since you don't seem to be able to grasp the concepts above, let's reduce it to "you stick to stating your own opinions, and I'll stick to stating mine."

One of my all-time favorite UDRP decisions is armani.com. Am I, you, or anyone else here likely to survive a UDRP proceeding on a name like "armani.com"? No way. For Mr. A. R. Mani, however, the case was a slam-dunk.

 

[Garry Anderson]

TNT> Still, my main point isn't being addressed: why is that three letters *must* be considered initials with an infinite variety of uses, and apparently could not possibly be a word in and of itself -- a made-up, very trademarkable (is that a word?) word like "KODAK."

I am sure no lawyer will deny that initialisms have infinite variety of uses in legal commerce (at least in a court of law) - whether they are very strongly associated with a single entity or not.

The "one size fits all" answer - as to how three-letter domain disputes should be decided - is that complaint is really true - that the domain name registration infringes on its trademark.

This just means checking factors that are examined in EVERY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ACTION (e.g. goods and services of complainant and respondent).

 

[David G]

Hi Garry, Can not speak for John or the WIPO Panel of course but I think one point they were making in part is what I earlier said on this issue (in Post 47 in this thread) re the owner was not putting the name to fair use in an offering of good and services tied to the name. IMO, they ruled correctly in this case.

"It is obvious the respondent lost the case due to not showing legitimacy or using the 3 letters in conjunction with a good faith offering of goods and services since it appears they did not use SFR as an acronym identifying a service, product or meaning of the 3 letters. Due to that the Panel had little choice but to rule against respondent. If you read between the lines the Panel all but said if the letters were used to identify an actual offering (rather than merely a search income page) the ruling would have been against the plaintiff."