Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yet Another Bad UDRP Decision

Posted by michael on from the another-in-a-long-line dept.

mrbrown1602 writes "According to a NewsBytes article, a Florida man named Peter Frampton had his domain, PeterFrampton.com, taken away thru the quasi-juduicial process established by ICANN for domain name disputes because he shares his name with a washed up rock star from the 70s. A copy of the WIPO decision can be found here."

3 of 29 comments (clear)

  1. Slashdot FUD by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The original holder of the Domain was using it for e-commerce and using logos from Peter (washed-up) Frampton's site.

    It was an intentional effort to cash in on the musician's name.

    1. Re:Slashdot FUD by martyn+s · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's no legal precedent, because WIPO has nothing to do with the United States, or any government's, legal system.

  2. Re: First Come, First Served? by markwelch · · Score: 2, Interesting
    No, I don't think domain names were "supposed to be first come, first served." I think the notion originally was that people and companies would play fairly, and not engage in "land grabs" nor register domain names which would only be useful because they were associated with someone else's reputation or business.

    Ultimately, what is "supposed to be" is settled by custom and law, and in this case a procedure was established, and in the USA a law was created especially to deal with this issue, and so "first come, first served" is NOT how our system has decided things are "supposed to be."

    Would I have designed a different system? Yeah, if I were emperor of the internet, I would have a different set of rules, which would make it a little bit harder for someone to win a case like this -- but if we did things the way I think they should be, the outcome in this case would not change.

    At one time, everyone was free to hunt animals and catch fish on public lands, without limitation. But then some people began hunting and fishing too much, depleting stocks and threatening species, and now things are different. Some fishermen and hunters claim that they are "supposed to be" able to hunt and fish until nothing is left, but our society has decided on a different set of rules.

    How are things "supposed to be"? It all depends on who does the supposing.

    --
    -- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California