[Ir-l] "Sucks" domain name must be awarded to company, WIPO panel says

[Paul Mobbs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
Subject: FC: "Sucks" domain name must be awarded to company, WIPO panel says
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:14:58 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
To: politech at politechbot.com
Cc: jdsallen at ix.netcom.com, rbianchi at internet.siscotel.com


This is an amazingly awful decision. It says that because non-English
speakers might be confused by the "sucks" suffix on
VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM, the domain name must be turned over to the
company it criticizes:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1121.html

>the Panel has found that non-English speaking Internet users would be
>likely to attach no significance to the appended word 'sucks' and would
>therefore regard the disputed domain name as conveying an association with
>the Complainant

The WIPO panel goes so far as to insist that because the band Primus owns
the domain name primussucks.com (named after their 1990 album "Suck on
This"), prospective visitors to vivendi.com might get confused about who's
 who.

- -Declan

- ---

From: "j d sallen" <jdsallen at ix.netcom.com>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan at well.com>
Subject: VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM UDRP decision
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:30:43 -0500

Yesterday I received the VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM UDRP decision which
comes down in favor of pirating this domain name for the company (aka,
ordering a transfer). Although, as its (for now) owner, it is my speech
rights that are being squashed, I got a good laugh out of the decision.
Have they no shame.

There is a darkly comic component to the VIVENDI decision. The decision of
panelists Sir Ian Barker and Alan Limbury  (now a sporting a combined
record of 72-10 in favor of complainants, when acting a single panelists)
references the rock group Primus. Indeed, they go further with specific
mention of Les Claypool, Primus's front-man. Are we supposed to believe
that these two "learned" Englishmen are followers of, or familiar with,
this particularly quirky rock band? In light of the fact that the
complainants in this case are multi-national rock music moguls (who made no
mention of Primus or any other group in their complaint, the only
communication sanctioned by the UDRP rules), this is one citing that
clearly fails the sniff test.

I recall reading a widely-published rebuttal of Michael Geists's study on
UDRP decisions and process, by an IP lawyer I think, arguing that any
Panelists whose decisions were consistently pro-complainant or betrayed an
agenda would fast be weeded out. Panelists like Ian Barker are perfect
cases in point showing the fallacy of that premise. Or perhaps Roberto
Bianchi, whose record is a "perfect" 43-0, and counting, in favor of
complainants (among these was the CORINTHIANS.COM ruling, as sole
panelist). Such intellectually bankrupt decisions are even more problematic
than they first appear because poor decisions serve as precedents that
enable more and poorer rulings. The result is a UDRP system that has sent
fairness into a death-spiral.

Warm regards,

J D Sallen




- -------------------

"We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government, nor are we for
this party nor against the other but we are for justice and mercy and
truth and peace and true freedom, that these may be exalted in our nation,
and that goodness, righteousness, meekness, temperance, peace and unity
with God, and with one another, that these things may abound."
(Edward Burroughs, 1659 - from 'Quaker Faith and Practice')


Paul Mobbs, Mobbs' Environmental Investigations,
3 Grosvenor Road, Banbury OX16 5HN, England
tel./fax (+44/0)1295 261864

email - mobbsey at gn.apc.org


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7/9cFtEaNwM05jx0RAvJ6AJ44RSQk6MaDNP5raD3PlFXtopnL7wCgoXnB
wp4hMVPuY81hI57tsTD720w=
=enNw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----