Fair Domain-Dispute Arbitration Firm Quits the Business

fwc writes: "According to this Newsbytes story, EResolution has decided to quit the Domain Name Dispute-Resolution business because its reputation for being fair has driven away its potential customers - the trademark holders who are filing the complaints. Apparently (and understandably) the trademark holders prefer to use those arbitrators who find for the trademark holder most of the time. Perhaps it is time for ICANN to rethink their policy."

Comments

At least the can get their's

[satanami69]

eResolution v. eResolution.com There is nothing in the spirit or substance of American law that could ever justify the expropriation of one person's rightful property in order to transfer ownership to some other person, based on the argument that the original owner had not yet "done anything" with his property other than simply holding it, whereas the other person has intentions and/or plans to put that property to some commercial use.

Re:At least the can get their's

[Stiletto]

You know, I've never looked at ICANN's rules until I browsed that link you just posted. The case seems pretty straightforward to me. A cyber-squatter got squashed.

Paragraph 4(c), which the "respondant" can use to defend the domain name, seems pretty easy to satisfy:

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

Note that this is a logical-OR. If you can claim any of the above you get to keep your domain. This guy didn't fall under any of the categories.

I must admit though, I don't like the terms "bona fide" or "legitimate" in the rules. It would be nice if they could define what a "bona fide offering of goods" is or what "legitimate noncommercial use" means. Maybe they do in another portion of the rules--I didn't read that far :-)

WHAT?!

[The Smith]

From the article:

The firm, one of four accredited under ICANN's Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), said that the policy under which those filing complaints get to choose the arbitrator encourages businesses to seek out the referee they believe is most likely to see domain-name holders as cybersquatters. [my emphasis]

I don't believe it: the plaintiff actually gets to choose which arbitrator will try the case, and the defendant has no say! This is like the MPAA being allowed to select which `justice' they want to try their court cases.

Hey, wait a minute...

Problem with the arbitration system

[fhwang]

The biggest problem is that under ICANN rules, only the person filing the complaint has any say as to which arbitrator is selected. The person defending against the complaint has no power whatsoever in deciding who the arbitrator is. So the complainant will pick an arbitrator with a history of favoring complainants.

Well, duh. Of course if you give only one side the ability to choose the adjudicator, then the odds will be completely skewed. A sixth-grader could design a more fair system.