[gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Thu Jun 7 17:25:03 UTC 2018


Doug,

A decision by a panel to terminate is still a "decision". Take a look at
the page:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=15703

*WIPO Case Number*   D2009-0637
*Domain name(s)*        renner.com
*Complainant*               Lojas Renner S.A.
*Panelist                       *Turner, Jonathan
*Decision*                      Terminated

Do you see the bolded word right before "Terminated" --- let me state the
obvious, it says "Decision".

Furthermore, take a look at the *timing* of when my company's case was
removed! Does anyone actually credibly believe it wasn't retaliation
against me?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Doug Isenberg <Doug at giga.law> wrote:

> I'm not seeking a "nice try," I'm simply trying to understand.  It sure
> seems that terminated cases don't belong on a page that refers to those
> involving a "UDRP decision," so perhaps the <renner.com> reference should
> be removed as well.
>
> Doug
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:15 PM
> To: Doug at giga.law
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP
> participants?
>
> Doug,
>
> Nice try again, but like Georges, you're not correct. See:
>
> http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
>
> which lists the Renner.com case, which was also terminated.
>
> http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=15703
>
> I obviously checked this *before* I brought this matter to the mailing
> list (that's why my responses are so quick, as I've anticipated every
> reasonable explanation).
>
> Recall, WIPO had already modified that page to remove the LawSociety.com
> case, in order to attempt to justify excluding a number of other cases that
> belonged on that page.
>
> This is blatant retaliation, plain and simple. WIPO should be ashamed of
> themselves.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Doug Isenberg <Doug at giga.law> wrote:
> > Could it simply be that the <pupa.com> dispute was mistakenly listed
> > on the WIPO page in the first place and, now that the error was
> > noticed (perhaps as a result of recent attention being given to this
> > page), it has been properly removed?  The WIPO page states (and
> > stated) that it "lists select court cases known to have been issued
> > following a UDRP decision."  However, it appears as if the <pupa.com>
> > case never resulted in a UDRP decision and instead was terminated.
> > See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=23622
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Volker
> > Greimann
> > Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 12:30 PM
> > To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP
> participants?
> >
> > Depends. Maybe the other party chose not to participate as it knew it
> had no chance. Or it did not want to risk the costs.  Or it never knew.
> > Speculating on the reasons why a party did not appear is futile. All
> that counts is that the UDRP decision was not upheld.
> >
> > Volker
> >
> >
> > Am 07.06.2018 um 18:23 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
> >> George K
> >>
> >> I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not
> productive.  In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after
> the UDRP was filed.  The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did
> not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed.  Your attorneys then filed
> for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody
> contested the matter.  This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge
> has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits.  I believe
> the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the
> parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision.  Just so
> you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits
> against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that
> resulted in defaults.  In my mind, those cases are not the type case that
> typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith
> use or registration of a domain name.  Like settle
> >>   ments, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties
> default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could
> be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort.  There
> are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have
> no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in
> question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money
> and thus simply default.  So, in my view, I would not read your case as
> being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real
> litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you
> might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think
> it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated
> cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision
> (e.g. Barcelona.com).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of George
> >> Kirikos
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM
> >> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> >> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP
> participants?
> >>
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I draw folks' attention to the page at:
> >>
> >> http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
> >>
> >> which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was
> shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional
> case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith
> Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name.
> >> Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one
> generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in
> the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
> >>
> >> No other changes were made.
> >>
> >> I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of
> Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other
> reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
> >>
> >> This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they
> disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences,
> just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
> >>
> >> This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to
> Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue
> of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future
> policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that
> they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO
> is obvious.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> George Kirikos
> >> 416-588-0269
> >> http://www.leap.com/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> >> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> Confidentiality Notice:
> >> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney
> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us
> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original
> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal
> tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is
> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
> (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
> addressed herein.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> >> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> >
> > --
> > Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
> >
> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> >
> > Volker A. Greimann
> > - Rechtsabteilung -
> >
> > Key-Systems GmbH
> > Im Oberen Werk 1
> > 66386 St. Ingbert
> > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> > Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
> >
> > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /
> > www.BrandShelter.com
> >
> > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> > www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> > www.twitter.com/key_systems
> >
> > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> > Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.:
> > DE211006534
> >
> > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> > www.keydrive.lu
> >
> > Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
> Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese
> Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per
> E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
> us.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Volker A. Greimann
> > - legal department -
> >
> > Key-Systems GmbH
> > Im Oberen Werk 1
> > 66386 St. Ingbert
> > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> > Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
> >
> > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /
> > www.BrandShelter.com
> >
> > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
> updated:
> > www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> > www.twitter.com/key_systems
> >
> > CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> > Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
> >
> > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> > www.keydrive.lu
> >
> > This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom
> it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of
> this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail.
> If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly
> notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> > 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
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180607/587dbd40/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list