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

Wed Feb 7 20:53:45 UTC 2018

I don't think this is a case of a "2nd bite at the apple" since the
complainant won the first URS proceeding and lost the second one.  So,
presumably, the domain name was re-registered by the respondent after the
URS suspension expired in the first case.  It would be fascinating to know
if the complainant/trademark owner tried to register the domain name fr
itself after the suspension expired but was unable to do so before the
respondent got it again - that's certainly a significant limitation/hazard
of the URS.

Douglas M. Isenberg

Attorney at Law

 <https://giga.law/> 

Phone: 1-404-348-0368

Email:  <mailto:Doug at Giga.Law> Doug at Giga.Law

Website:  <https://giga.law/> Giga.Law

From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul
Keating
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 12:21 PM
To: Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: 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
 <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 <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/b0659bd2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3662 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180207/b0659bd2/image001.png>