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

Wed Feb 7 20:12:17 UTC 2018

I believe that it is important to review the complaints and facts described
in both cases in order to get a conclusion and know more about the
applicants too.

Hector

Héctor Ariel Manoff
Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen
Viamonte 1145 10º Piso
C1053ABW Buenos Aires
República Argentina
Te: (54-11) 4371-6100
Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365
E-mail:  <mailto:amanoff at vmf.com.ar> amanoff at vmf.com.ar
Web:  <http://www.vmf.com.ar/> http://www.vmf.com.ar

****************************************************************************
************************************************************************

Esta comunicación tiene como destinatario a la persona o empresa a la cual
está dirigida y puede contener información confidencial y reservada. Si el
lector de este mensaje no es el destinatario o sus empleados o
representantes, deberá proceder a reenviar el presente a su remitente. La
distribución, diseminación o copiado de este mensaje podría constituir
violación a la ley. Gracias.

This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
to recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. Thank
you.

****************************************************************************
************************************************************************

De: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de Paul
Keating
Enviado el: miércoles, 7 de febrero de 2018 15:11
Para: Corwin, Philip; jon at donuts.email; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Asunto: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Two URS decisions of note

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
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> 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.  

1635446

boucheron.pub

Boucheron Holding SAS v. zhouhaotian et al.

URS

08/31/2015

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

09/15/2015

1676556

boucheron.pub

Boucheron Holding SAS v. zhouhaotian et al.

URS

05/25/2016

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

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/20180207/3d8dc9be/attachment-0001.html>