Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Impact on UDRP

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Don't know about all your points but this one is a must.
  Service upon an OPOC must be considered service on a respondent, domain name 
holder or registrant. Otherwise the whole thing is a waste of time.
   
  Eric

Doug Isenberg <disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  What impact would any of the Whois changes being discussed have on the UDRP?
For example:

-- Presumably, a Complainant needs to know the identity of a domain name
registrant to prove that the registrant has "no rights or legitimate
interests in respect of the domain name" as required by paragraph 4(a)(ii)
of the Policy. How would a Complainant obtain access to a registrant's
identity -- and in a way that does not prematurely disclose the access (to
prevent cyberflight)?

-- Presumably, a Complainant needs to know the identity of a domain name
registrant to prove bad faith under 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, which refers to
a domain name registrant engaging in a "pattern" of registering domain names
to prevent trademark or service mark owners from reflecting the marks in
corresponding domain names. Again, how could a Complainant obtain access to
a registrant's identity in a way that does not prematurely disclose the
access?

-- If a Complainant submitted a UDRP complaint to an OPOC instead of to the
registrant itself (if the Complainant did not have the registrant's identity
and contact information), would that satisfy paragraph 3(b)(xii) of the
Rules, which requires a Complainant to certify that the Complaint "has been
sent or transmitted to the Respondent"? (Note that the Rules define a
Respondent as "the holder of a domain-name registration against which a
complaint is initiated".) If not, wouldn't the UDRP Rules have to be
revised?

Doug Isenberg
www.GigaLawFirm.com




       
---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.