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

[Paul Keating]

Phil,

I think you have them reversed in time-order.

The summary ruling without facts was the latest one (September 2015) and
suspended the domain.

The more detailed ruling was the earlier one (May 2015) and resulted in a
denial of the complaint.

Paul

From:  "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com>
Date:  Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 6:56 PM
To:  Paul Keating <paul at law.es>, "jon at donuts.email" <jon at donuts.email>,
"gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Two URS decisions of note

> 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
> examiner¹s 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> on behalf of Jon Nevett
> <jon at donuts.email>
> Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 6:02 PM
> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <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.  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 1635446boucheron.pubBoucheron Holding SAS v. zhouhaotian et
>> al.URS08/31/2015Suspended
>> Default <http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1635446D.htm> 09/15/2015
>> 1676556boucheron.pubBoucheron Holding SAS v. zhouhaotian et
>> al.URS05/25/2016Claim 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 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/20180207/3745f897/attachment.html>