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

Thu Jun 7 21:57:45 UTC 2018

Agree completely with Phil.  This is ridiculous.

George K., why so much focus on that damn WIPO page?!  NAF and the other
providers don't even have one at all.  Maybe it should be a policy
recommendation that records are kept and published re 'overturned' UDRP
decisions.  I would definitely support that.  But it is not a policy
requirement now; so WIPO can put whatever they want on their webpage.
Nobody else in this group cares, as far as I can tell.

Move on....

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Phillip Marano <Phil at winterfeldt.law>
wrote:

> I fail to see how any of these ad hominem allegations are actually
> relevant to the current substantive focus of this WG.
>
>
>
> If folks have grievances with particular individuals, then they should
> pursue the proper channels for complaints (we’ve already filed at least one
> and will likely now file yet another), rather than engage in numerous
> disruptive and distracting emails to the entire WG.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [image:
> https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]
> <https://www.winterfeldt.law/>
>
> *Phillip V. Marano*
>
> Senior Associate
>
> Winterfeldt IP Group
>
> 1200 17th St NW, Ste 501
>
> Washington, DC  20036
>
> phil at winterfeldt.law
>
> +1 202.759.5834
>
>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the
> use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
> received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are
> not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
> e-mail.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Nahitchevansky,
> Georges
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 2:14 PM
> *To:* George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP
> participants?
>
>
>
> As you would say, nice try George.  The cases are vastly different.  Your
> case has no significance.  It is simply a default judgment and from what I
> can tell does not look to have had anywhere near the evidence submitted and
> arguments made as what was involved in Parvi.  Personally I did not say
> Parvi belongs on the WIPO page.  However, I can understand why that case
> would be on the page given that it touched on an issue and did something
> that no other court had done up to then.  Your case has none of that and is
> simply a garden variety, run of the mill default.  There is nothing that
> warrants it being on a page that concerns meaningful decisions.  There are
> hundreds of other cases that involve defaults that are similarly situated
> to your case and are not that meaningful.  Like I said, if you want to have
> a page that lists every domain name related lawsuit ever, then get ICANN to
> create such a page or, alternatively, hire some research assistants and put
> together a list of the hundreds of lawsuits out there and get it posted on
> ICANN or some other venue.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:54 PM
> *To:* Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP
> participants?
>
>
>
> Georges:
>
> My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge:
>
> http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf
> <http://www.loffs.com/pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf>
>
> "and on hearing the submissions of counsel"
>
> I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at
> court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages
> for a case of this type in my jurisdiction).
>
> Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that
> you stated belongs on that page:
>
> http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf
>
> and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad
> that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that
> page). So does the Pupa.com case.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
>
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <
> ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
>
> George K
>
>
>
> Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case.  There was an
> actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc.
> The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case
> where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the
> court found to be reverse domain name hijacking.  Ask Paul K and John B to
> explain this to you.  Your case had none of that and has had no
> significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases
> involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to
> provide meaningful cases.
>
>
>
> *From:* icann at leap.com
>
> *Sent:* June 7, 2018 12:29 PM
>
> *To:* ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com
>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP
> participants?
>
>
>
> Georges:
>
> Nice try, but Parvi.org is a default judgment, but is included, and is
> even explicitly labelled as such!
>
> http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
>
> This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you
> scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared
> to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against
> them?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269 <4165880269>
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges
> <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
> > 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 settlements, 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 <4165880269>
> > 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 <4048156500>, 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180607/a3fc2b9a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7718 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180607/a3fc2b9a/image002-0001.png>