snubbr.com

GoDaddy reviews : Suggest I try GoDaddy?? Interesting tidbit from a decision...

Get GoDaddy web hosting for just $1.99. Click here to use coupon...

Special $7.49 .COM sales. Click here for this special deal...
Http://wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decis...2007-1675.html Basically saying, even though the criterea is spelled out, no all of it is spelled out in the policy. I don't recall reading a determination worded as such which expands "bad faith" application of the policy beyond what is written...

Comments (7)

That could be bad for some legit domain owners.

EDIT: After reading some more of the details, imho it seems they made the right decision. It appeared to be a predatory registration intended to cause FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), and would likely cause confusion and possible loss of business by a simple mis-type. And the WIPO's finding that the registrant had a prior relationship with the owners of the mark, makes it even worse for the registrant.

Interesting that they basically expanded the scope of bad faith beyond what is written, although in this case, I think it would classify as bad faith even though it may not have fallen under the exact wording of 'bad faith' doctrine.

It will be interesting to see what kind of fallout comes from this... may be interesting in a bad or good way... I'm not sure myself. I can see there may be some up and downs to this...

Comment #1

I can agree with the decision, I have no problem with that. I have said the criterea is interpreted as registered and/or used in bad faith, but is written registered and used in bad faith. In this case I think he used it in bad faith. But for the explaination to expand bad faith beyond as it is written in the policy does scare me a bit. Maybe I'm reading too much into it...

Comment #2

I agree with you, it is a bit disturbing... However, I think in a lot of cases, panelists just make crap up as they go along. Just because someone finally states it, doesn't mean it hasn't been happening all along...

Comment #3

So, basically they interpreted the "and" as an inclusive 'and', and not exclusive - ie it's not a black and white this AND that, but rather a more 'gray' this [and/or] that. It makes sense to me... in my case I have a name that was registered and used in good faith for a certain service, and now after I have developed my site on a similar name (unrelated uses), now they are going to try to compete with me on said name. I would hope that the 'and' would be inclusive of one or both in my case since the name obviously wasn't regged in bad faith, but they intend to use it in bad faith shortly.

However, it is bad in that it basically opens the door for other panelists to take it to the extreme and make potentially bad and unfair decisions. They basically removed AND, and inserted their own AND/OR. If anything, imho this has the potential to make things more murky and less straight forward.

Good end result, possibly bad for future results...

Comment #4

Heh, you are, DNQuest.

Besides, the respondent said a lot of things he really shouldn't have that later.

Did him in. There were just too many circumstances not in his favor...

Comment #5

Like I said, I agree with the decision, that wasn't the issue. It was the panelist went out of their way to say, "this doesn't fit our scope, but there is more that you just don't know about". I just though the wording was unusual...

Comment #6

Panelists are rogue abitrators...they don't have to nor do they need to rely on any actual laws or precedent set by their own standards. The system seems to work for the most part but it's a scary ride when you get on.

Well I took the time to read it...I think you are reading into that line too much Phil. We all agree it was an overall good decision...

Comment #7


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.