news Arvesta.com lost in UDRP 3 member panel, 1 dissenting

[omnia]

Read about it here:

https://domaingang.com/domain-law/a...-in-respondents-loss-with-dissenting-opinion/

 

[korganian]

Wow, that's shameful. Two of the panelists completely disregarded the UDRP rules.

This reasoning is insanity. I sure hope the respondent files a lawsuit and gets his name back. Can a lawsuit be filed against the incompetent panelists too?

"The objective reasons leading to the Panel’s conclusions that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name lead also to the finding that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith."

Source: https://domaingang.com/domain-law/a...-in-respondents-loss-with-dissenting-opinion/

 

[bookname]

Hi,

Any issue with the link? I could not access domaingang.com ?

 

[tonyk2000]

Interesting quote:

The nature of the Respondent’s business, on the only evidence on this subject, is that it is engaged in a lawful and legitimate business recognised as such by distinguished panelists and that buying the domain name was a legitimate part of that business. The alleged “opportunistic behaviour” of the Respondent was that it bought a domain name on the open market and is apparently now to be deprived of it at the suit of a party on no evidence whatsoever.
This panelist would therefore find that the Respondent has succeeded in showing that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name and that it did not register the domain name in bad faith.

The Hon Neil Brown Q.C.
Panelist (Dissenting)

Panelist Neil Brown Q.C showed that he is unbiased and professional also a lot of times before...

Original decision:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2020-1115

On a side note, if the G search output was the same on on March 5, 2020 as it is now, then the Responded and all "48 other bidders" were acting irrationally by bidding the price up to USD 4,567. The search results do refer to Complainant almost exlusively. So, who could purchase it as an enduser? Only the complainant was a 1 real potential buyer. Not anybody else. Any other potential enduser would have avoided being associated so deeply with unrelated company (or spending 5 figures for such a "privilege") , and the tm registration status as well as other meanings (if any) are absolutely irrelevant in this context. So, at least some ot 48 bidders were looking to purchase it with one and only purpose - to sell it to this Belgian entitiy (and this crowd definitely includes frontrunners). The Responded says it was not - ok, let it so be so. In any case, realistically speaking, the domain in question had the only 1 potential buyer. Investing in such domains makes no sense imo.

Purchasing such a domain on an expired auction is also irrational, since the one and only potential enduser was already notified by different auction frontrunners that they are selling "their" domain name, and are looking for offers. What would such an enduser think as the result, and how would it act, is another story. One scenario is shown is this thread.

 

[tonyk2000]

One curious part of the decision is:

On May 5, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 3, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

Almost 1 month to confirn? I never saw such a timeout before. Was there anything special here in connection with this domain, which remained undisclosed in the decision?

As per the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"):

Within two (2) business days of receiving the Provider's verification request, the Registrar shall provide the information requested in the verification request and confirm that a Lock of the domain name has been applied.

 

[DomainRecap]

Panelists like this need to either a) read the UDRP (ostensibly for the first time) b) halt any and all use of their panelist stature to "ambulance chase" for new clients and/or b) stop taking money under the table, as this decision is totally contrary to the purpose of the UDRP.

You know a panelist is pulling a fast one once they start dragging out the unsupported and idiotic "the greedy bugger wanted more than he originally paid "out of pocket" for the domain, therefore he's immediately guilty of all 3 UDRP requirements!!" - I'd love to buy a house from one of these panelists and kick them in the nads if they wanted one dollar over their original purchase price.

The Hon Neil Brown Q.C. deserves a round of applause for standing up to this duo of unread sycophants, who unfortunately seem to represent the majority of current UDRP panelists.

They wanted or needed to give the domain to the complainant, and lacking any true rationale for decision, made up a pile of crap that falls well outside established UDRP proceedings.

We have "suspicions" the respondent acted in bad faith, he asked for more than "out of pocket expenses" so he's greedy and we don't like him, and although the complainant admits not having any level of brand recognition and no active TMx existed in the database, he "must have known all about and directly targeted this small European company that recently changed their name".

 

[Mytz.com]

thanks for sharing

 

[korganian]

Interesting quote:

The nature of the Respondent’s business, on the only evidence on this subject, is that it is engaged in a lawful and legitimate business recognised as such by distinguished panelists and that buying the domain name was a legitimate part of that business. The alleged “opportunistic behaviour” of the Respondent was that it bought a domain name on the open market and is apparently now to be deprived of it at the suit of a party on no evidence whatsoever.
This panelist would therefore find that the Respondent has succeeded in showing that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name and that it did not register the domain name in bad faith.

The Hon Neil Brown Q.C.
Panelist (Dissenting)

Panelist Neil Brown Q.C showed that he is unbiased and professional also a lot of times before...

Original decision:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2020-1115

On a side note, if the G search output was the same on on March 5, 2020 as it is now, then the Responded and all "48 other bidders" were acting irrationally by bidding the price up to USD 4,567. The search results do refer to Complainant almost exlusively. So, who could purchase it as an enduser? Only the complainant was a 1 real potential buyer. Not anybody else. Any other potential enduser would have avoided being associated so deeply with unrelated company (or spending 5 figures for such a "privilege") , and the tm registration status as well as other meanings (if any) are absolutely irrelevant in this context. So, at least some ot 48 bidders were looking to purchase it with one and only purpose - to sell it to this Belgian entitiy (and this crowd definitely includes frontrunners). The Responded says it was not - ok, let it so be so. In any case, realistically speaking, the domain in question had the only 1 potential buyer. Investing in such domains makes no sense imo.

Purchasing such a domain on an expired auction is also irrational, since the one and only potential enduser was already notified by different auction frontrunners that they are selling "their" domain name, and are looking for offers. What would such an enduser think as the result, and how would it act, is another story. One scenario is shown is this thread.

Here are three other companies with active websites which I assume would all love to acquire arvesta.com:
https://www.arvestaconsulting.com/
http://arvesta.ch/
http://arvestainc.com/