Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The UDRP: Is It Un-Fair.com?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the selling-to-the-stronger-bidder dept.

typecast writes "A study of more than 3,000 UDRP decisions by a Canadian law prof. suggests that ICANN's domain-dispute resolution process may be even more unfair than Slashdot types already believe. This article says the study confirms organizations such as WIPO and the National Arbitration Forum decide most cases in favor of trademark holders. But it also says it's clear that individual arbitrators with strong "anti-cybersquatting" records are the ones most likely to be handed UDRP cases. A copy of the study and a minimal database of UDRP-panelist stats can be found at Geist's own UDRPInfo Web site."

6 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Logic bombs away! by mystery_bowler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The reason trademark holders win the vast majority of these domain name disputes couldn't possibly be because they deserve the name and the current holder has no reason other than cybersquatting to have it...could it?

    I mean, hey, I know the every day average guy has no chance in hell up against a corporation when undergoing fast-track arbitration. And maybe I'm just not clued in to the majority of these cases, but if someone made a statement to me to the effect of "A guy named Joe Toledo bought the domain ford.com and now the car manufacturer wants it, who do you think should have it?" I'd be inclined to side with Ford. Because Ford has a trademark, much like an integral part of their corporate entity. Now, if you told me a guy named "Joe Ford" bought it, I'd say you've got a case. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of these defendants in domain name disputes don't have a reason other than profiteering to have these domain names and that's why they lose.

    --

    My sigs always suck.
    1. Re:Logic bombs away! by dschuetz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "A guy named Joe Toledo bought the domain ford.com and now the car manufacturer wants it, who do you think should have it?" I'd be inclined to side with Ford. Because Ford has a trademark....

      Yeah, so?

      A trademark, if I recall correctly, is only supposed to protect a certain range of products within that product's "sphere." So it's perfectly legal to sell a pen called "Ford Pens", and you're not trampling on any trademark.

      Plus, why do you even need to have a use for a name? Domain names are commodities. If you bought it first, and Ford missed the boat, well, tough luck for them. You've got it, they don't.

      If you're deliberately deceiving pepole, trying to *look* like some other site, okay, that's a problem with look-and-feel, trade-dress sort of laws. But if I wanted to put my family website at, say, OfficeXP.com, then dammit, I should be allowed to do that.

      My biggest worry is that the same .com crap is going to happen with .info, .biz, and all the other new TLDs. We saw EXACTLY this same thing happen when they added new toll-free prefixes in the US -- American Express tried suing to guarantee that they got 888-the-card, to match their 800-the-card. And so forth.

      Dammit, when will people get it through their heads that you cannot own domain names for EVERY variant on EVERY product or trademark you own? It's just not possible, and it's just not fair.

      Grr.

      Sorry, this is something that's been bugging me for a while. Gotta cut back on the caffeine...

  2. Cybersquatters are scum... by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Every desirable name (and even most typos) have been gobbled up by a bunch of greedy, talentless parasites who are hoping to strike it rich by cyberextorting from companies. I'm happy to see them lose these battles. Sure, there are probably some cases being decided the wrong way, but the good being done outweighs the bad.


    Sorry if this opinion offends, but when I really resent jerks paying $35/year to register a domain and then extorting $200K out of some company. I'm tired of finding every domain name that I might want in the hands of some cybersquatter who has no intention of ever using or developing it. It reminds me of someone who buys up all of the plywood before a hurricane and sells it for $100/sheet to his desperate neighbors.

  3. 51st state? by Xandu · · Score: 5, Funny

    By Steven Bonisteel, Newsbytes
    OTTAWA, ONTARIO, CANADA, U.S.A.,
    20 Aug 2001, 8:12 AM CST

    When did Canada become the 51st state? News to me!

    --


    --Xandu
  4. Mod this up by kypper · · Score: 3, Funny
    It reminds me of someone who buys up all of the plywood before a hurricane and sells it for $100/sheet to his desperate neighbors.


    A very apt analogy.

  5. Is anyone surprised? by webmaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it incredible that anyone is surprised that when complainants are give the choice of arbitrator, that they would choose arbitrators who have decided for the complainant more often.

    Thus, there is a built-in incentive for arbitrators to decide for complainants rather than respondents.

    Similarly, the US correctional system (which is run by for-profit corporations), has an incentive to make the situation worse rather than better, with the unfortunate result of these corporations funneling money to 'tough on crime' political candidates, and creating the 'war on some drugs' to incarcerate the perpetrators of victimless crimes.

    These are examples of elementary positive feedback loops, and no-one should be surprised at the results.

    --
    The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.