<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>All true, but UK courts have set different precedents. As they
say: "In court and on the high seas..."</p>
<p>Volker<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 21.11.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Paul
Tattersfield:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAF5NKX7SKPTDjWW1u3-wkhTXQ-4VGGoKW74OSV_seeY-gtsZEA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">UDRP is an administrative proceeding not
arbitration it makes provisions for parties to resolve their
differences by arbitration or court proceedings <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:16 PM,
George Kirikos <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:icann@leap.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">icann@leap.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Jonathan,<br>
<br>
</div>
My understanding is that these UK cases which
appear to deny the de novo review, which is at
odds with the "bargain" that was made when the
policies were adopted (i.e. that they were not
final, not binding arbitration at all), might have
started 5 years ago with a case between Toth and
Emirates Airlines, as mentioned in this article:<br>
<br>
<a
href="https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/22/nominet_rules_mean_abusive_domain_name_registrations_finding_cannot_be_reheard_says_high_court/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.theregister.co.uk/<wbr>2012/03/22/nominet_rules_mean_<wbr>abusive_domain_name_<wbr>registrations_finding_cannot_<wbr>be_reheard_says_high_court/</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>(that was a DRS case under .uk, but then it
impacted some ICANN-regulated gTLD cases) <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
While you suggest that "the domain name holder
agrees with the registrar on binding arbitration", I
respectfully disagree. At some point we can go back
to the history of the development of these ADR
procedures (and it helps that folks like Kathy, J.
Scott, etc. were all around for the UDRP, and others
for the URS, and others for PDDRP, etc.), and they
can refer to the primary documents and discussions,
as to whether any of those policies were intended to
be the "final word" via binding arbitration, or
instead were lightweight procedures that were
subject to de novo review.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Have a nice Thanksgiving holiday week.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
</div>
George Kirikos<br>
<a href="tel:%28416%29%20588-0269" value="+14165880269"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">416-588-0269</a><br>
</div>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:23
PM, Jonathan_agmon icann <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:jonathan.agmon.icann@ip-law.legal"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jonathan.agmon.icann@ip-law.<wbr>legal</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);background-image:initial;line-height:initial">
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506response_container_BBPPID"
dir="auto">
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
George,</div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
I think it is best to stick to the facts and
read the decision. It speaks for itself. </div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
As to the statements you refer to below I am
unclear what you propose. Clearly the
UDRP/URS were not designed to create an
appealate jurisdiction on a national level.
I believe that fhe fact that ACPA exists in
the US is an exception not the international
norm. </div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
As I wrote below, I believe amending the
UDRP/URS to provide a national appealate
jurisdiction would require an international
convention to be ratified by the member
states. I'm not sure this exercise is within
the WG charter scope. </div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Rebecca below says the ADR decision is
binding and she is correct because the
domain name holder agrees with the registrar
on binding arbitration. Again, I am unclear
whats wrong with that. This does not take
away any rights the parties already have.
The domain name holder can still use
whatever cause of action he has under
national law to bring suit against the TM
owner. </div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Again, nothing in the decision prevents the
domain holder from filing oroceedings in UK
courts. I believe nothing cited below syas
otherwise. As with any national court a
plaintiff has to identify what is his cause
of action. In the yoyo.mail case the
Claimant failed to do so. This is not an
usual case in that respect. I think the few
articles that tried to make big news out of
a rather simple outcome cannot really change
this. </div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506BB10_response_div_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506response_div_spacer_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="width:100%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506blackberry_signature_BBPPID"
dir="auto">
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506_signaturePlaceholder_BBPPID"
dir="auto"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506_original_msg_header_BBPPID"
dir="auto">
<table
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506_pHCWrapper_BBPPID"
style="background-color:white;border-spacing:0px;display:table;outline:none"
width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506_persistentHeaderContainer_BBPPID"
colspan="2"
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div
style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt
solid rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt
0in 0in;font-family:Tahoma,"BB
Alpha Sans","Slate
Pro";font-size:10pt">
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506from"><b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">icann@leap.com</a></div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506sent"><b>Sent:</b>
20 November 2017 9:37 pm</div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506to"><b>To:</b>
<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a></div>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506subject"><b>Subject:</b>
Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Availability of
Court for Domain Name owners
challenging a URS decision --
false assumption?</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506_persistentHeaderEnd_BBPPID"
style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt
solid
rgb(186,188,209);display:block;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="m_125834403509683144h5">
<div dir="auto" style="outline:none">
<div
id="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506ssc7543599826072113703">
<div><font size="2"><span
style="font-size:10pt">
<div
class="m_125834403509683144m_-1743342902959742506PlainText">Hi
Jonathan,<br>
<br>
I believe your reading of the
case is inconsistent with how
others<br>
have analyzed it. In my initial
post I linked to 3 separate
articles<br>
analyzing the decision. I didn't
bother to quote from them, but
let me<br>
do so now:<br>
<br>
[1] <a
href="https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2015/december/ruling-means-uk-courts-will-not-overturn-decisions-by-domain-name-dispute-resolution-panels-says-expert/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.out-law.com/en/art<wbr>icles/2015/december/ruling-mea<wbr>ns-uk-courts-will-not-overturn<wbr>-decisions-by-domain-name-<wbr>dispute-resolution-panels-<wbr>says-expert/</a><br>
<br>
"Ruling means UK courts will not
overturn decisions by domain
name<br>
dispute resolution panels, says
expert<br>
...<br>
A UK court ruling that it did
not have the jurisdiction to
hear and<br>
determine an appeal against a
decision taken by domain name
dispute<br>
resolution panel will be
welcomed by brand owners, an
expert has said.<br>
<br>
Intellectual property law
specialist Rebecca Mitton of
Pinsent Masons,<br>
the law firm behind Out-Law.com,
said the High Court's judgment
is<br>
important as it means decisions
taken in accordance with the
Uniform<br>
Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
can be considered binding with
no<br>
right of appeal to UK courts.<br>
...<br>
However, in a ruling seen by
Out-Law.com, His Honour Judge
Dight said<br>
that there was no "cause of
action" that Yoyo.email could
cite under<br>
the UDRP to justify its
arguments being considered and
that the policy<br>
also did not "afford any
jurisdiction" to the High Court
to "act as an<br>
appeal or review body" from the
domain name dispute resolution
panel's<br>
decision in August 2014."<br>
....<br>
"It is also significant in
setting a clear precedent that
decisions<br>
made by UDRP panels through the
WIPO procedure are not capable
of<br>
being challenged through the
courts. This provides certainty
for brand<br>
owners who have achieved a
positive result in such
proceedings, safe<br>
in the knowledge that the
decision is not open to review
or appeal<br>
through the courts," she said.<br>
<br>
[2] <a
href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b19a14df-9dc5-494e-bb6e-6351f7e0e35b"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.lexology.com/libra<wbr>ry/detail.aspx?g=b19a14df-<wbr>9dc5-494e-bb6e-6351f7e0e35b</a><br>
<br>
"The High Court confirms that
One in a Million is still good
law,<br>
despite alleged developments in
internet knowledge, and the High
Court<br>
should not be used for appeals
from domain name dispute panels<br>
(Yoyo.email Limited v Royal Bank
of Scotland Group Plc and others<br>
[2015] EWHC 3509 (Ch))<br>
...<br>
Issues<br>
...<br>
2. whether decisions under the
ICANN UDRP are open to review by
the High Court.<br>
...<br>
The decision on the second
question surrounded the
interpretation of a<br>
clause in the UDRP, which stated
as follows:<br>
<br>
“Availability of Court
Proceedings. The mandatory
administrative<br>
proceedings requirements set
forth in Paragraph 4 shall not
prevent<br>
you or the complainant from
submitting the dispute to a
court of<br>
competent jurisdiction for
independent resolution before
such<br>
mandatory administrative
proceeding is commenced or after
such<br>
proceeding is concluded…”<br>
<br>
Dight HHJ held that, on the
proper construction of the
clause, it did<br>
not give rise to a separate
cause of action in favour of
Yoyo, nor did<br>
it afford any jurisdiction to
the High Court to act as an
appeal or<br>
review body from the decision of
the Panel. He also confirmed
that<br>
there would be no material
difference in seeking an appeal
as from the<br>
Dispute Resolution Service
Policy (the “DRS”) operated by
Nominet in<br>
the UK than under the UDRP.<br>
<br>
The judge therefore proceeded to
strike the claim out."<br>
...<br>
The decision provides a useful
lesson that the UK courts should
not be<br>
used as an appeals court for
domain dispute resolution
already<br>
decision under the DRS or the
UDRP. The judgment reinforces
that the<br>
people appointed to the relevant
panel are often experts in<br>
determining these kinds of cases
and it generally would not be<br>
appropriate for the courts to
make comment. It is also
important for<br>
parties to remember that seeking
declaratory relief from the
court<br>
would also not change the rights
in respect of the Domain Names,<br>
therefore meaning that there is
no practical utility in granting
the<br>
declarations."<br>
<br>
[3] <a
href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4f1b77cc-8474-4e9f-b02d-f6547ef7490f"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.lexology.com/libra<wbr>ry/detail.aspx?g=4f1b77cc-<wbr>8474-4e9f-b02d-f6547ef7490f</a><br>
<br>
"The High Court also clarified
that it did not have
jurisdiction to<br>
hear appeals of uniform dispute
resolution policy (UDRP) or
Dispute<br>
Resolution Service (DRS)
decisions.<br>
...<br>
In relation to the claimant's
request for declaratory relief,
the<br>
court held that the UDRP did not
"afford any jurisdiction" to the
High<br>
Court to "act as an appeal or
review body" from the domain
name<br>
dispute resolution panel's
decision in August 2014. The
judge held<br>
that clause 4k of the UDRP
(which states that the parties
are not<br>
barred from taking the matter to
court after its conclusion) did
not<br>
give rise to a separate cause of
action in favour of the
claimant, nor<br>
give the court any jurisdiction
to act as an appeal or review
body in<br>
relation to the UDRP decision.
This is in line with the
previous case<br>
of 'Toth' which similarly held
that the court did not have<br>
jurisdiction to hear appeals of
DRS policy decisions. (By way of<br>
reminder, Nominet's DRS policy
is applicable in relation to '.<a
href="http://co.uk"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">co.uk</a>'<br>
domain names whilst WIPO's UDRP
is relevant to various other
gTLDs,<br>
such as '.email' in this case.)"<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
<a
href="tel:%28416%29%20588-0269"
value="+14165880269"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">416-588-0269</a><br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
<br>
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:44 AM,
Jonathan_agmon icann<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jonathan.agmon.icann@ip-law.l">jonathan.agmon.icann@ip-law.l</a><wbr>egal> wrote:<br>
> George,<br>
><br>
> My reading of the case is
different. I don't think
anything in the RBS decision
(attached) interfere with
existing legal rights of a TM
holder or a domain name
registrant. On the contrary, the
court simply says that the UDRP
does not of itself creates a
cause of action to either party
under English law. The court
does not say that the parties
cannot bring an action under
available causes of action they
have under English law. The
Claimant simply didn't do so
(with the URS/UDRP in existence
or without it). Nothing in the
decision prevented the Claimant
or future claimants from filing
proceedings in the UK to
challenge a UDRP decision under
existing causes of action. The
court actually says that UDRP
does not replace or interfere
with English law or the
available causes of action.<br>
><br>
> If you read the decision
you should come at the
conclusion that the court heard
the parties de novo and stated
that in view of its finding the
application for declaratory
judgment was rendered otiose
{Par 31(5) which you didn't
cite} and the application for
summary judgment on behalf of
the TM holder was accepted.
Courts in the UK do not provide
remedy when its application
serves no practical utility. I
have not read the Australian
decision but I have not seen to
date a decision which disturbs
the assumptions that ADR
mechanisms, which parties agree
to interfere with existing legal
rights (unless the parties
agreed to such changes and local
law allows such changes to be
made). I am of course happy to
review such, if they exist.<br>
><br>
> I believe there was nothing
for the claimant [Yoyo Mail] to
appeal because it lost on the
evidence. It is also important
to note that the remedy the
disputed domain name holder
sought was one for declaratory
judgment. It did not argue any
other cause of action. In
contrast, the TM holder RBS
counterclaimed with trademark
infringement and passing off.
The court discuss at length the
causes of action brought by the
RBS, the trademark holder in the
counterclaim and finds them well
established and that "actionable
passing off occurred at the
point of registration of the
Domain Names..." [at par. 17].
The court goes on to state that
misrepresentation cannot be
corrected: "there is nothing in
that first stage of the
claimant's system which would
neutralise or correct the
misrepresentation and confusion
which, in my judgment, would be
created by registration of the
Domain Names in the first
place." [Par. 18]. The court
reviewed evidence and even
watched videos during the
hearing. The court states that
"[e]ven taking its evidence at
its highest the claimant does
not satisfy me that it has a
realistic, as opposed, to
fanciful prospect of
successfully defending the
counterclaim." [At par. 22] The
Judge then accepts the
counterclaim through the
application for summary
judgment. In other words the
Claimant's case was heard and
rejected.<br>
><br>
> But even more importantly,
the parties agreed that if the
application for summary judgment
is successful, the judge does
not have to rule on the
application for declaratory
judgment. The court statement
that the Claimant has no cause
of action relates to the fact
that he moved for a declaratory
judgment that the court will
state that the Claimant
registered and used the disputed
domain name in bad faith, but
the Court refuses to do so
because in view of the
acceptance of the application
for summary judgment, there is
no practical utility in deciding
that request. The result is a
direct flow of the fact that the
court accepted the application
for summary judgment. The
Claimant simply didn't state any
other claim and the UDRP was not
intended to nor does it provide
new causes of action under UK
law (or any other law for that
matter). To have new causes of
action you require the
legislator to legislate.<br>
><br>
> If you are suggesting a
change to this situation
(applying ACPA to other
countries outside the US) you
may be looking at enhancing the
URDP/URS to the level of
international treaties, which
when accepted by countries would
generate new causes of action
(and this can be done according
to the internal treaty
implementation provisions of
each member country).<br>
><br>
> I do agree with you that
Paul's suggestion that
applicants should all file
action in the US is impractical
for many reasons and may at most
times be impossible from a US
law perspective.<br>
><br>
> Jonathan<br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: gnso-rpm-wg [<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ic<wbr>ann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of George Kirikos<br>
> Sent: Monday, November 20,
2017 6:50 AM<br>
> To: gnso-rpm-wg <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg]
Availability of Court for Domain
Name owners challenging a URS
decision -- false assumption?<br>
><br>
> Hi folks,<br>
><br>
> I brought up this topic on
Wednesday's RPM PDP call, and
Kathy suggested that I put the
issue in writing for the benefit
of the broader working group
that hadn't attended the call.<br>
><br>
> There's been an implicit
and fundamental assumption that
the URS (and similarly, the
UDRP) doesn't interfere with the
existing legal rights of a TM
holder or a domain name
registrant, and that either
party can bring an action in
court, heard on a de novo basis,
to challenge the outcome of a
URS (or a UDRP), either before,
during or after the ADR
procedure devised by ICANN. The
ADR was intended to complement
existing law, and wasn't
intended to interfere with or
replace existing law.<br>
><br>
> Is that assumption correct
in all jurisdictions worldwide?
If not, what must be done to
correct the situation? (since
this violates the fundamental
"bargain" that led to the
establishment of those policies
in the first place)<br>
><br>
> This is not some
theoretical concern. Consider
the Yoyo.email case, described
at:<br>
><br>
> <a
href="https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2015/december/ruling-means-uk-courts-will-not-overturn-decisions-by-domain-name-dispute-resolution-panels-says-expert/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.out-law.com/en/art<wbr>icles/2015/december/ruling-mea<wbr>ns-uk-courts-will-not-overturn<wbr>-decisions-by-domain-name-<wbr>dispute-resolution-panels-<wbr>says-expert/</a><br>
> <a
href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b19a14df-9dc5-494e-bb6e-6351f7e0e35b"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.lexology.com/libra<wbr>ry/detail.aspx?g=b19a14df-<wbr>9dc5-494e-bb6e-6351f7e0e35b</a><br>
> <a
href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4f1b77cc-8474-4e9f-b02d-f6547ef7490f"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.lexology.com/libra<wbr>ry/detail.aspx?g=4f1b77cc-<wbr>8474-4e9f-b02d-f6547ef7490f</a><br>
> <a
href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/3509.html"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases<wbr>/EWHC/Ch/2015/3509.html</a><br>
><br>
> "31. My conclusions on the
application to strike out the
Claim are:<br>
><br>
> 1) adopting the reasoning
of Ms Proudman in Patel drives
me to hold that on a proper
construction of the UDRP clause
4k does not give rise to a
separate cause of action in
favour of the claimant;<br>
><br>
> 2) nor does it afford any
jurisdiction to this Court to
act as an appeal or review body
from the Decision;"<br>
><br>
> While the Yoyo.email court
complainant is not a sympathetic
party to some, the above
decision attacks the very
foundation of the URS (and
UDRP). This should be a high
priority for remedial
policymaking, as it was an
unintended consequence that is
now having real-world effects.<br>
><br>
> While the above is in the
context of a court challenge to
a UDRP decision against a domain
name registrant, the exact same
analysis applies to the URS.
Thus, now is the appropriate
time to tackle the issue (and
kill two birds with one stone).<br>
><br>
> This jurisprudence appears
limited to the UK, and perhaps
Australia where apparently a few
other cases may have encountered
the same problem (as has been
discussed in the IGOs PDP where
I and a few other members of
this RPM PDP first discussed the
issue).<br>
><br>
> The cause of the problem is
easy to identify.<br>
><br>
> If there was no URS (or
UDRP) policy in place what would
be the "law"<br>
> and the procedural path to
justice? Clearly, a trademark
holder would have a "cause of
action" under trademark law
against a domain name
registrant. The TM holder would
file a lawsuit (as plaintiff)
against the domain name
registrant (as defendant).<br>
><br>
> With the URS (or UDRP), the
procedural path to justice is
altered in the event a TM holder
uses it and is successful under
the ADR. To challenge the
outcome of the ADR, the domain
name registrant now has the role
of the plaintiff in court, and
the TM holder is the defendant.
The parties have switched their
prior positions as plaintiffs
and defendants, and it turns out
that might cause a significant
problem in some jurisdictions.
i.e. it might make a difference
which party to the dispute files
in court as plaintiff in some
jurisdictions.<br>
><br>
> That UK court is saying
that ICANN can't simply conjure
a "cause of action" out of thin
air. If the domain name
registrant brings a case in that
UK court, that court is saying
"you have no cause of action,
ICANN can't create one for you,
bye bye, case dismissed."<br>
><br>
> Now, under the ACPA in the
USA, there is a clear cause of
action for domain name
registrants that they can
follow, so it's not a problem.<br>
> And other courts in other
jurisdictions have heard cases
similarly brought by a domain
name registrant challenging ADR
procedures devised by ICANN.<br>
><br>
> If we look at the language
of URS itself:<br>
><br>
> <a
href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/a<wbr>pplicants/urs/procedure-01mar1<wbr>3-en.pdf</a><br>
><br>
> "13. Other Available
Remedies<br>
> The URS Determination shall
not preclude any other remedies
available to the appellant, such
as UDRP (if appellant is the
Complainant), or other remedies
as may be available in a court
of competent jurisdiction. A URS
Determination for or against a
party shall not prejudice the
party in UDRP or any other
proceedings."<br>
><br>
> It's clear that in some
jurisdictions, there appears to
be that exact "prejudice" to the
domain name registrant, who now
becomes a "plaintiff with no
cause of action". Without the
procedure, they would have been
a "defendant with available
defenses to the cause of action
brought by the trademark
holder." The ADR procedure
itself, by switching who becomes
plaintiff and who becomes
defendant in a lawsuit, is
interfering with the rights
those parties had before the
policies were adopted by ICANN.<br>
><br>
> What could be done to
restore the proper balance?<br>
><br>
> (1) the URS (and/or UDRP)
could be eliminated entirely (or
made optional for the domain
name owner),<br>
><br>
> or<br>
><br>
> (2) in the event a court
refuses to hear a case brought
by the domain name owner
challenging a URS (or UDRP)
ruling, then the URS (or UDRP)
decision needs to be set aside,
and the TM owner can instead
file a TM dispute themselves
directly in real court if they
want to take the dispute
further.<br>
><br>
> Paul McGrady suggested a
third option on Wednesday,
namely:<br>
><br>
> (3) allowing all domain
registrants to file actions in
US courts<br>
><br>
> which, I think would be
problematic for obvious reasons
(but I do applaud him for
participating in the active
discussions, thinking on his
feet and helping to brainstorm
during a live call). [Why should
a Chinese registrant in a
dispute with a Pakistani TM
holder for a domain at an Irish
TLD / registry operator and a
German registrar be compelled to
have the dispute heard in the
USA?] We have to make policies
that are robust to global law
and international jurisdictions.<br>
><br>
> I look forward to a
productive discussion on this
important topic.<br>
><br>
> Sincerely,<br>
><br>
> George Kirikos<br>
> <a
href="tel:%28416%29%20588-0269"
value="+14165880269"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">416-588-0269</a><br>
> <a
href="http://www.leap.com/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
> <a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> <a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
><br>
>
******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>************************<br>
> This footnote confirms that
this email message has been
scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure
for the presence of malicious
code, vandals & computer
viruses.<br>
>
******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>************************<br>
><br>
><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>************************<br>
This footnote confirms that this
email message has been scanned
by<br>
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the
presence of malicious code,
vandals & computer viruses.<br>
******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>************************<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
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.
</pre>
</body>
</html>