[declan a well.com: FC: "Sucks" domain name must be awarded to company, WIPO panel says]

Marco d'Itri md a LINUX.IT
Sab 17 Nov 2001 12:33:52 CET


Ecco un'altra vergognosa decisione da parte di WIPO.

----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan a well.com> -----

Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:14:58 -0500
To: politech a politechbot.com
From: Declan McCullagh <declan a well.com>
Subject: FC: "Sucks" domain name must be awarded to company, WIPO panel says
Cc: jdsallen a ix.netcom.com, rbianchi a internet.siscotel.com
Reply-To: declan a well.com
X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
X-Author: Declan McCullagh is at http://www.mccullagh.org/
X-News-Site: Cluebot is at http://www.cluebot.com/

This is an amazingly awful decision. It says that because non-English
speakers might be confused by the "sucks" suffix on
VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM, the domain name must be turned over to the
company it criticizes:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1121.html
>the Panel has found that non-English speaking Internet users would be
>likely to attach no significance to the appended word 'sucks' and would
>therefore regard the disputed domain name as conveying an association with
>the Complainant

The WIPO panel goes so far as to insist that because the band Primus owns
the domain name primussucks.com (named after their 1990 album "Suck on
This"), prospective visitors to vivendi.com might get confused about who's
who.

-Declan

---

From: "j d sallen" <jdsallen a ix.netcom.com>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan a well.com>
Subject: VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM UDRP decision
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:30:43 -0500

Yesterday I received the VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM UDRP decision which
comes down in favor of pirating this domain name for the company (aka,
ordering a transfer). Although, as its (for now) owner, it is my speech
rights that are being squashed, I got a good laugh out of the decision.
Have they no shame.

There is a darkly comic component to the VIVENDI decision. The decision of
panelists Sir Ian Barker and Alan Limbury  (now a sporting a combined
record of 72-10 in favor of complainants, when acting a single panelists)
references the rock group Primus. Indeed, they go further with specific
mention of Les Claypool, Primus's front-man. Are we supposed to believe
that these two "learned" Englishmen are followers of, or familiar with,
this particularly quirky rock band? In light of the fact that the
complainants in this case are multi-national rock music moguls (who made no
mention of Primus or any other group in their complaint, the only
communication sanctioned by the UDRP rules), this is one citing that
clearly fails the sniff test.

I recall reading a widely-published rebuttal of Michael Geists's study on
UDRP decisions and process, by an IP lawyer I think, arguing that any
Panelists whose decisions were consistently pro-complainant or betrayed an
agenda would fast be weeded out. Panelists like Ian Barker are perfect
cases in point showing the fallacy of that premise. Or perhaps Roberto
Bianchi, whose record is a "perfect" 43-0, and counting, in favor of
complainants (among these was the CORINTHIANS.COM ruling, as sole
panelist). Such intellectually bankrupt decisions are even more problematic
than they first appear because poor decisions serve as precedents that
enable more and poorer rulings. The result is a UDRP system that has sent
fairness into a death-spiral.

Warm regards,

J D Sallen




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


----- End forwarded message -----

--
ciao,
Marco



Maggiori informazioni sulla lista ita-pe