I've always been a proponent of defending yourself (e.g. responding), even if you think you don't need to respond to win. This decision may have turned out differently if there was a response from the respondent...
Agreed that the non-response wasn't an ideal move - but did the complainant state a claim on which relief could be granted (I'm feeling all 12(b)(6)ish today )? Maybe. Even without a response, however, I don't think that I could have come to the same conclusion as the panelist, even if I had tried..
This one would have been a "worst decision of the day" for me, but I've stuck the honor on a different panelist..
Think that "WorstDecisionOfTheDay.com" would get me in trouble ? There are better names, don't take that one, btw.
No response, is a default of the name, I just wonder why the person didn't communicate, oh well...
But it shouldn't be - and the policy as written, is not. However, panelists don't seem to feel the need to be too married to the policy plain reading.
I gotta ask is "Lookbest.com" really worth even keeping? Yeah it might be worth a few bucks but not enough to hire a lawyer to defend.
I also agree that a non-response shouldn't automatically create a loss for the respondant...
Probably not, but it's worth firing off an email explaining your own point of view if nothing else, or take it and have some fun with it like the guy who responded as his cat..
There have been decisions where a non-respondant won, I can't find my link for it.. ugh. It was posted here some time back.....
There have been "plenty" (Borrowing language from the Lisbon meeting, methinks...) - it's not that they never win, it's just that a non-response is not supposed to move the burden to the respondent, but rather that the complainant needs to make the correct claims (At a minimum), and then the panelist use their best judgment based on what is available. However, other than token decisions to the contrary, the pitiful win rate of the respondent is a windfall in comparison to the % win rate with the decisions respondent responses redacted. Imagine if pig.com didn't have a response (Like the .biz).
Uh, Allan, you know the panelist won't decide in favor of the complainant if he.
Or she sees they didn't meet all 3 conditions. But if all 3 are satisfied, then it.
Only makes sense the burden falls on the respondent to dispute those, right?.
On the other hand, there are a handful of "questionable" decisions. Perhaps a.
Similar dispute procedure (like that of Nominet's DRS for the respondent if he.
Or she loses) can help, which is what I'm including as part of my comments to.
ICANN's call for review.
(Don't know if they'll do anything about that, but what the heck.)..
The complainant's establishing the elements of a UDRP is necessary, and after the making of the prima facie case then the burden could be shifted to the respondent (I'd say it should be an even split at this point (Civil), but I understand the comparisons that can be drawn that would make this more analogous to the standards for judgment in absentia.), but in this case (And a few others that I posted) I don't think that the complainant has even made the basic elements of their case.
And I would dispute that the "panelist won't decide in favor of...." line on two grounds: first, that they seem to be particularly error-prone (To me), and secondly, I believe that if there is no response that the panelist (Even more so than usual) feels that to "take action" is to order the transfer of the name (And the continued transferring of domain names does keep their bread-baskets full...).
I know it's been hit around a lot already, but pig.com - would you have had this one transferred without a response? The complainant did establish all 3 elements to even a fuller extent than lookbest or crikey or onesie did, so was it only the fact that there was a response that this domain name was saved? I hope not, but something tells me it would be in the overwhelming category of "transferred" had Adam (right?) not been so proactive. Should he had to have been for such a generic term?.
Geez, how stupid can these guys keep getting? The domainer had the company by the short hairs, he'd beat 'em to the punch of getting the domain AND before any TM was granted. He had it made! But n-o-o-o-o - he then has to go out and start offering services COMPETING with the TM guys!.
(Oh, and apparently the domainer SUBTRACTED - not added - letters to the name.).
As to that other domain question, it should maybe be called worstwipocallofthe day.com. Or do they make a bad one every day? If not, maybe it should be Worst Wipo Call Of The Week...
Not just WIPO, but also NAF..
And methinks it's daily, but my last two have been "denied" by the masses.
I couldn't agree with you more, Allan, ICANN's ethics are horrible imo..