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

Wed Feb 7 23:30:17 UTC 2018

Thanks. I thought I was, but was rushing to chair the RPM review call when I emailed and then was engaged the rest of the day.

So what happened in the intervening nine months? No way to tell from the bare bones second decision.

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 5:48 PM
To: Doug at Giga.Law
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Two URS decisions of note

Ur right about the dates.  Sorry Phil.  My bad eyes.

Sent from my iPad

On 7 Feb 2018, at 21:54, Doug Isenberg <Doug at Giga.Law<mailto:Doug at Giga.Law>> wrote:

   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

<image001.png><https://giga.law/>

Phone: 1-404-348-0368

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

Website: Giga.Law<https://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<mailto:jon at donuts.email>>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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
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

   _______________________________________________
   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/20180207/45e823df/attachment-0001.html>