Domain Name Dispute Process Called Into Question

Chemist109 writes "The Register has an article about a study of the domain name dispute resolution process. The study accuses domain arbitrators of "actively choosing judges who favoured complainants (trademark holders)." Since the complainant in a domain dispute is allowed to choose where a case is heard, this ensures the arbitrators continued revenue."

Comments

Google formalize search

[bstadil]

I wish Google would somehow formalize the search for domain names, so we could reduce this issue. I only type in domain names for very few sites, where I know the URL by heart. Most of the time I just hit Google and 9 times out of 10 the first suggestion is what I am looking for. Opera has the Google search box next to the URL address box so its almost as easy.

Re:Google formalize search

[The Pim]

I wish Google would somehow formalize the search for domain names

It's an interesting idea, but it can't work. At least, that's my conclusion.

Obviously, you can (and many do) already use google in preference to URL's by your own choice. But you are probably thinking of a system by which companies, etc can advertise a google URL, eg google://myco (and thus stop suing "little guys" over domain names). This URL would direct the browser to google "myco" and jump to the first hit.

Now, imagine a company considering using google URLs's.:

myco: So if people type google://myco, they'll get to my web site, even if we don't own myco.com?

google: Sure, as long as myco is the top rated hit for that keyword.

myco: And the ratings are determined how?

google: By scanning random web pages and running them through our proprietary algorithms.

*click*

The alternative, of course, is that google can promise myco the top slot (for a price). But then google is effectively jut an alternate registrar, with even less accountability.

Reversing cause and effect?

[Bowfinger]

I don't see how this study provides much useful information. There are two reasons that complainants may win most cases. The article suggests that it's because the judges are biased. It is just as likely that the complainants win most cases because their complaints are valid.

I'm not suggesting that the process it truly fair. Like just about everything else these days, I'm sure the playing field is slanted heavily in favor of commercial interests with deep pockets. I just don't think there's enough information here to prove bias.

The study would be more meaningful if it focused on complaints where the defendant had a plausible justification for keeping a domain. I don't know how you can do this objectively. If you make subjective decisions about which complaints are included, it would color statistical analysis of the data.

At a minimum, I'd like to drop the no-brainers before tallying results. It's pretty obvious to me that Pepsico should have the rights to pepsi.com, pepsicola.com, and pepsico.com. It's a unique name, it shouldn't be a surprise that the judges would rule in Pepsi's favor. I'd like to know how they rule on names like pepsi-sucks.com or pepsi-lovers.com, and on names that could legitimately belong to a number of entities, for example abc.com or johnson.com.

Anyone have better information?

Money

[Jucius Maximus]

Domain name registrars and company are in this business to make money. And considering the tight competition in the market for domain name services, this is not surprising.

The thing is, even if the process was changed to favour the other side of the argument, it would still be biased and a problem would still exist.

I think that this is a strong reason for having a real 'cyber-court' so that technology and internet issues can get judged without having to worry about judges and juries who don't understand technology or the issues. I mean, the current law (and media) system knows its way around fraud/murder/typical crimes cases very well, but the number of judges that understand technology issues, I would expect, is very small. But if governments stepped up and formally came up with a group with the knowledge and tools to solve problems that traditional goverments know little or nothing about, then we would be one step closer to having an internet and legal system that was more in favour of the people in the right as opposed to the people with the money (although sometimes those groups overlap.)

Scrotor?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sent $5 to some guys to register scrotor.biz, my new domain, because, I own a small business and I am really looking into profits because, the future is in the dot bizs today.

Heck, I'd better had given this monay to subscribe to the new slashdot subscription system (altho I really like the big ads). The dudes, just stole the name, registered scrotor.biz for themselves and now ask $1000 for it.

Posting anonymously, because I don't want to reveal my name nor the name of my company.

This happened to one of my buddies

[Ali Jenab]

One of my close friends had owned a very desirable 3-letter .com domain since 1994. He had received several (pitifully small) offers from a large corporation to purchase the domain name, but he had no interest in accomodating their demands. Sure enough, the company dragged it before ICANN not once, not twice, but three times before they got the result they wanted. After spending a few hundred dollars on attorneys' bills, my friend gave up and dropped the matter.

Now, since he makes over $100k a year as a consultant, he gives generously to the EFF and is a vocal opponent of ICANN and their pro-corporatist domain dispute rules. He is actively working for change in the system, and although the road is long, I am confident that someday we will win this battle.

/ali

Authorities bastardized words for one use

[Garry Anderson]

First off - trademarks are a good thing - for consumer and business.

Fact: UDRP is bull* propaganda.

For one thing, it goes against Unfair Competition Law - they give priority to one business above others, who share the same word(s) or initials. For another they abridge the use of words to the people.

I have been in contact, for quite some time, with US and UK authorities (and lawyers) on these domain and trademark problems.

Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.

MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country.

For example, the World Trade Organization - WTO shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone. The same with any initials, International Trade Centre - ITC, International Monetary Fund - IMF etc., etc., etc.

Same for any word apple, ball, cat etc., etc., etc. They all are shared by many other businesses.

The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce know the answer to exclusively identify ALL trademark domains.

It would allow ALL to use their trademark, without 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.

Based on all evidence, I believe the authorities are corrupt. If they truly wanted rid of these problems, why do they not use the solution?

People and small non-trademarked businesses could then use domains without these excuses being used to take away (steal) their legal property in UDRP.

The simple solution was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.

Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see - no connection with United Nations WIPO.org.