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

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Great stuff,
   
  "Lying Pattern and Premature Disclosure" sounds like the making of a lurid 
novel.
   
  It seems to me that we are all in agreement that any OPoC will be the agent 
for service of process for the registrant.(DNH)  Obviously disclosures would 
then be right behind. Doug, you know how the burden of proof works and of 
course the "claimant" always has to make first disclosure.
   
  Back to the Novel, I think stripping a holder of all his privacy, and 
"legwork" needs to be weaved in there somehow.

   
  Eric
  
Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:
  Doug Isenberg wrote:

>-- 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)

Under the OPoC proposal the identity of the registrant (name, location)
would be known. Yes, you additional info would be useful (e.g., life
history, business registrations, etc.) but you have no right to it nor
is it prima facie required. 

You can ask the registrant, via its OPoC, for the basis of their claim
to a right and legitimate interest. If they do not respond that is often
used by UDRP panelists as supporting evidence of bad faith. 

>-- 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. 

Seems obvious to me that such a pattern could be estalbished by having
the same name, jurisdiction, and even the same OPoC. If the registrant
lies on this they may as well lie on the additional information that is
screened. The same "lying pattern" that is often used with the
additional info may show up. 

This business about "premature disclosure" strikes me as odd. If you are
talking about filing a UDRP claim you are disclosing all kinds of things
to the registrant. 

>-- 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"? 

If that doesn't count as "sent or transmitted" already the rules could
easily be modiied to make it so.




 
---------------------------------
Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peak at the forecast 
 with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.