[gnso-rpm-wg] Two URS decisions of note

Corwin, Philip pcorwin at verisign.com
Wed Feb 7 17:56:35 UTC 2018


Speaking solely in a personal capacity, the first decision is of the minimalist variety that concerns me, as there is no mention of either the trademark at issue or what if any content was at the website. Requiring a recitation of such essential facts would add no significant burdento the examiner's task and would make review of future URS decisions much more meaningful.



The second decision probably goes above and beyond what is required in a URS case, but is welcome nonetheless (other than the lack of explanation of how the same domain/registrant wound up in a second URS less than a year after the prior one). The examiner notes that the website is dark and, rather than basing a suspension on application of the passive holding doctrine (which I would accept as a result if warranted)declined to suspend on the ground that bad faith use was merely speculative.



Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell



"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey



From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 12:21 PM
To: Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Two URS decisions of note



Interesting.



The lack of any references in the 5446 decision to the trademark or any use of the domain precludes confirmation that the standard has in fact been met.  This I would say is a quintessential example of a problem.  The decision itself must at least contain the facts that were found so as to support the decision.



ALSO, this raises the issue of the 2nd bite at the apple.  We have no idea if the facts changed during the 9 month period (e.g. Was there any conflicting use of the domain).  The decision is  simply devoid of any references.



This speaks both to a possible lack of application of the proper standard.  However, it also tends to show that the panelists are not well informed as to what is required in any decision.  This would seem to be an NAF issue resulting from a lack of administrative review of the decision for complaince AND in ensuring that panelists are properly educated and qualified.





Paul

From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email<mailto:jon at donuts.email>>
Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 6:02 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Two URS decisions of note



   I wanted to point out two default cases between the same complainant and respondent relating to the same domain name that came our differently about 9 months apart.



   I am not commenting on the substance or what it means (I assume that there will be differing interpretations), but just wanted to share them with the group.





1635446

boucheron.pub

Boucheron Holding SAS v. zhouhaotian et al.

URS

08/31/2015

Suspended
Default<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1635446D.htm>

09/15/2015

1676556

boucheron.pub

Boucheron Holding SAS v. zhouhaotian et al.

URS

05/25/2016

Claim Denied
Default<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1676556D.htm>

06/12/2016



   Best,



   Jon

   _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180207/24bc2c0e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list