This is Truly Disturbing! What's Your Take?

WOW! That's plain daft.:o

The domain vanity.com is a generic.
If the true full story is that they based this on a $1 million counter offer, then that is BS and I hope they appeal and also pursue criminal theft charges somehow.
Domainers should have some kind of an organization that gets involved when BS like this happens.
Maybe there was more to it? Similar to someone using the otherwise generic domain apple.com to sell other computers?

I was actually thinking about this and was wondering if there is anybody that is keeping a list of these people who make these choices, names. Also, the fact that there could be a 1 person panel deciding something like this is pretty ludicrous. Somebody needs to round up the troops and work on this.

Looks like both partys are in the usa and a lawsuit has just been filed by the udrp loser, and the transfer will be halted pending a real legal proceeding

Every time a generic (or LLL.com...) is lost at wipo, it's always because it was parked and displaying sponsored ads - either matching complainant's products and services or competitors'.
It all boils down to usage even though you have little control of the advertising feed of the PPC provider. Bottom line: don't park valuable domains.

But UDRP is an arbitration scheme, some panelists have biases or shortcomings and if you don't like the outcome you can still go to court. I would for a name of that caliber.

We are easy prey for this things. vanity.com value is huge. If I have this domain, I don't need search a buyer, so where is the Bad Faith. I will pay lot of money for that domains then a guy will come and will say "give me this,give me that" Okay boss...Today patent taking is very easy thing, maybe this is "Bad Faith"...So if you have that type domain, buy domain + patent, then sell them together...

According to the link, it was a one member panel ...

That's much of the reason right there. Still that doesn't justify the decision, but brings in question why the respondent, especially if they have enough funds to file federal suit / file TMs, didn't opt for a three person panel.

A three person panel is no guarantee, but greatly improves the odds of getting a more just decision; having some input on the panelist selection.

I'm not sure it's 100% a parking or ads issue. Proving a domain owner's bad faith is fairly easy IMO if you are obsessed with that domain which is something close to your trademark, and if you are ready to spend the money needed for lawyers, wipo filing, etc. No matter how generic the domain is, I believe that well paid lawyers will always be able to prove bad faith somehow. Look at uspto, there are thousands of generic words listed as primary trademarks! And you'll likely face this when you try to sell a name for 6 figures. They won' let you beat them that easy. At least, I would try my chance with wipo and others first, before paying 1M for that name. No significant loss in trying that way. Changing the staus quo needs changes in laws related to domain owners, and probably only some kind of syndicate will be able to force such changes in laws. Otherwise we'll continue to read such stories I'm afraid.

Let's face it. Domaining law is essentially a chimp circus.

Domagon said:

A three person panel is no guarantee, but greatly improves the odds of getting a more just decision; having some input on the panelist selection.

Click to expand...

The Pacquiao-Bradley fight, had a three person panel. And Pac still got robbed.

Some of these UDRP decisions, are indeed an act of lunacy.

A Complainant who lost a case, can still reapply the same case with a different UDRP judge and can still get a decision in his favor.

But a Respondent who lost his domain in the case,... well, i haven't heard anyone making an appeal from another UDRP judge, to reverse the decision and reclaim back his domain.

alien51 said:

But a Respondent who lost his domain in the case,... well, i haven't heard anyone making an appeal from another UDRP judge, to reverse the decision and reclaim back his domain.

Click to expand...

Some domain dispute schemes like the DRS (UK) have appeals. UDRP doesn't.

they should also sue the udrp panelists. they have be held accountable for their bad decisions.

I think this case was talked about in a recent Domain Sherpa interview with internet attorney Howard Neu. http://www.domainsherpa.com/howard-neu-udrp-interview/

"Vanity.com was lost by its owner, Vanity.com Inc., to Vanity Shop of Grand Forks, Inc., even though 1) it was registered before Vanity Shop came into existence and 2) Vanity.com owns a registered trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office."