UDRP BC30.com UDRP lost by NamePros Member

[Silentptnr]

Sorry to read that Rob Monster lost a domain and a payday. I learned from this.

https://domaingang.com/domain-law/bc30-com-udrp-what-not-to-do-when-negotiating-a-domain-sale/

Let's discuss this.

I personally have never been involved in a udrp case, but naturally I've contemplated my plan if I ever am.

 

[nothere]

I'm in udrp right now for ibmkeyword.com . keyword has nothing to do with computers. I will claim ibm is just 3 letters, which can be shared by many companies, so it is almost like a generic word...I don't want to hijack this thread so this is all I say. In a fair case I would win, but I assume I have 50 percent chance of winning because of corruption.

Really? so out of all the possible 3letter combo+keyboard you registered ibmkeyboard.com? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_keyboard

If you don't drop it, you really deserve the fine and other sides' lawyer fees. Domainers don't support squatting famous trademarks, that's so early 1990's.

 

[topdom]

keyword =! keyboard

"keyword" has nothing to do with computers.
a keyboard is part of a computer.

so big difference. I didn't mention the exact domain.

 

[pb]

In a fair case I would win, but I assume I have 50 percent chance of winning because of corruption.

I would say you have 5% and that's still generous. You could be selling potency enhancement herbs under microsoft2bighard.com and still lose the domain to Microsoft because of the enormous brand recognition, and IBM has a brand at least as strong.

Also I think it would be wise to ask the mods to split this section from this thread as it's completely off-topic.

 

[jberryhill]

I will claim ibm is just 3 letters, which can be shared by many companies, so it is almost like a generic word

IBM is not just three letters. In fact, when I'm defending cases involving short three or four letter domain names, I will usually point out that it is not as if we are talking about IBM, HSBC, BMW, etc..

"which can be shared by many companies" - Oh really? Name a few.

IBM is immediately recognizable as a well known and famous mark.

Currently pending:

D2020-1635
ibmcoronavirus.org

D2020-1650
ibmassist.com

D2020-1684
ibmupdate.com

D2020-1720
ibmconsulting.com

Saying "IBM is just three letters" does not explain why you registered the name and believed it to be valuable. Do you have the same keyword registered with some OTHER just three letters in front of it?

I can assure you that every single one of those IBM(keyword) cases pending before WIPO is going to be decided in favor of IBM or the respondent is going to be smart enough to seek a UDRP rule 17 transfer.

That's not "corruption". That's simple common sense.

 

[nothere]

@jberryhill curious: how much would a "normal" domain fed court case would cost? Or there's no such thing and fees are decided in the end? Let's assume that the lawyer is local so no travel /lodging needed.

 

[jberryhill]

@jberryhill curious: how much would a "normal" domain fed court case would cost?

About the same as a "normal" wedding.

Hey, this thread is about the BC30 case and associated festivities. It's not an "ask me anything". So, the next event will be the reply brief to the Order to Show Cause due by August 13, unless something interesting happens.

 

[branding]

It's not an "ask me anything

Looking forward to the namepros special: Ask me anything, with Mr. Berryhill

 

[topdom]

ICBC paid 8 figures to buy icbc.com. icbc is as big as ibm, if not bigger.
Same for tesla.com.
Are these companies stupid. And here these domains are more than just confusingly similar.
And yes, I have other LLLkeyword.com ,..I look at intrinsic quality.

IBM paid billions to advertise its brand. But similarly US govt spent billions to hide the fact that
9/11 was an inside job, and moon landings were fake. But I can still defend the truth, and expose
lies.

 

[bmugford]

IBM paid billions to advertise its brand. But similarly US govt spent billions to hide the fact that
9/11 was an inside job, and moon landings were fake. But I can still defend the truth, and expose
lies.

Dude...

 

[branding]

Dude...

Sweet!

Ps. Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[jberryhill]

ICBC paid 8 figures to buy icbc.com. icbc is as big as ibm, if not bigger.

First off, the domain wasn’t sold. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Secondly, the domain is registered to the Insurance Company of British Columbia, which is a long-standing and legitimate user of that acronym. They have been using ICBC to conduct business since 1973. That is a very different situation than some crazy person in mom’s basement who registers an ICBCfinancial domain last year and wants to sell it to the Chinese bank. Unfortunately, your other comments suggest you may not possess the critical thinking skills necessary to understand the key distinctions there.

 

[jberryhill]

And, incidentally....

Same for tesla.com.

Do you know that the registrant of tesla.com had a lawyer?

Do you know who that lawyer is?

https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/547889.htm


PARTIES
Complainant is Tesla Industries, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brian A. Sullivan, Esquire of Werb and Sullivan, 300 Delaware Avenue, 13th Floor, PO Box 25046, Wilmington, DE 19899. Respondent is Stu Grossman d/b/a SG Consulting (“Respondent”), represented by John Berryhill, Esquire, 4 West Front Street, Media, PA 19063.


REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tesla.com>, registered with Gandi.

———-

So, I certainly don’t need any help being reminded that Tesla.com was registered by my client in 1992.

The car company did not exist when Tesla.com was registered. My client’s domain name was unsuccessfully challenged by another company named Tesla in a UDRP.

So, when the car company, formed in 2003, became interested in the domain name, they knew two things - (1) they could not win a dispute against the name which my client had eleven years before they existed, and (2) if they tried, they would be met with a competent defense.

That has nothing to do with registering IBM/consulting/update/assist .com - all of which keywords are certainly relevant to IBM’s business, and all of which were registered more than 100 years after IBM has been around.

Anyway, tune in mid-August for the next update, unless Rob filed sooner.

Got other questions? Post ‘em and see if you get lucky.

 

[Reddstagg]

1 - Who determines 'Confusingly similar' and what are the agreed parameters? Where can we see this information. Q -would anyone say that 'KnightRaider' and 'NightRider' were confusingly similar?

2 - If I as the Registrant am registering the name as a Domain Investor does this not give me the right, whether implied or otherwise, to have legitimate interests or rights in the name by the very nature of Domain Investing if Domain Investing is recognized as a legitimate Business?

3 - What constitutes 'beyond all reasonable doubt' bad faith and what are the parameters and who determines them and where can we see this information?

4 - Are the 'Several non-exclusive factors' just the four factors in the information quoted or are there more 'Factors'?

5 - If it is just the four 'non-exclusive factors' mentioned and the answers to all the points are 'No, they did not' is this sufficient grounds to dismiss the case or are there other factors or opinions taken into account?

That's it for now, but I would appreciate any comments or feedback that you may have.

Regards,

Reddstagg

 

[jberryhill]

I meant to say “Post ‘em as other threads and see if you get lucky.” This thread already had a topic.

 

[Reddstagg]

I meant to say “Post ‘em as other threads and see if you get lucky.” This thread already had a topic.

Mr Berryhill,

Thank you for your quick reply.

Although related, I agree it could be deleted by Moderators if perceived to be off topic for this thread.

I had posted the above questions on the 'SCOTUS Booking .com' thread previously.

 

[Keith]

Mr Berryhill,

Thank you for your quick reply.

Although related, I agree it could be deleted by Moderators if perceived to be off topic for this thread.

I had posted the above questions on the 'SCOTUS Booking .com' thread previously.

You need to research past threads or create a new one that is on topic.

 

[branding]

I meant to say “Post ‘em as other threads and see if you get lucky.” This thread already had a topic.

I know your time is precious but I was wondering if you would be open to an 'ask me anything' of some sorts on Namepros? Have you ever been asked?

Maybe you'd encounter a lot of 'stupid' questions but I think the legal side in domaining is highly underrepresented and you're kind of an authority in that field, in my opinion anyway.

 

[topdom]

If there are no other companies named ibm then this would mean, IBM abused its power to prevent it from happening, because many companies can be abbreviated as a given premium 3 letter acronym.
For example international business management (and yes, this domain exists). Can't they use ibm.net, they should be able to. And there is an .io site. A domain can be good fit for their business, but it can also be good fit for others.
(I can defend myself perfectly (but not here), but maybe not worth it, domaining is not a very honorable thing anyway.)

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Curious to hear if there are any updates...

On July 22nd, the plaintiff @Rob Monster was ordered to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed.

Plaintiff shall file a responsive a responsive brief no later than August 13, 2020. The Clerk of Court is directed to note this Show Cause on the Court's calendar for Friday, August 14, 2020

 

[jberryhill]

Curious to hear if there are any updates...

So, as for BC30.com, I am confident that the facts are fully on my side, and look forward to justice being served, and for a high profile win against corporate sponsored WIPO thuggery.

Timing-wise, during COVID and Seattle riots, the Seattle courts were not moving quickly so there was no urgency. Now that the courts are back to work, we plan to move to meet the court's deadlines.

 

[jberryhill]

Incidentally, Rob referred to the VisitQatar.com case earlier in this thread.

Yes, it was a bad decision. Bad decisions happen. However, the registrant in that case engaged counsel, and is continuing to contest the decision:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16525539/mehdiyev-v-qatar-national-tourism-council/

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Thanks for the update!

So what happens now?

Will ICANN have to force Epiks hand to relinquish the domain?Does Epik have the option to file another lawsuit prior to relinquishing control? I'm basically wondering what is the proper procedure for contested UDRPs following a case judgement?

Additionally, and I'm not saying this is the case here, but I'm wondering, in theory, can anybody who loses a WIPO UDRP file a lawsuit in their local jurisdiction simply to postpone relinquishing the domain and prolong their ownership? Almost as if, appealing the decision, grants the domain owner more ownership time while leaving themselves open to a possible settlement option. So what's the risk type thinking...?

 

[jberryhill]

Will ICANN have to force Epiks hand to relinquish the domain?Does Epik have the option to file another lawsuit prior to relinquishing control? I'm basically wondering what is the proper procedure for contested UDRPs following a case judgement?

The UDRP and its rules are pretty simple, and follow the order of events.

The Policy is here:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en

The procedural Rules are here:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en

On top of that, each of the providers has their own supplemental rules for things like page limits, fees, etc., and WIPO has a fairly readable overview of common questions:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/

Most of the common questions on Namepros, for example, can be answered by consulting that Overview.

This proceeding has reached the highlighted point in UDRP 4(k):


k. Availability of Court Proceedings. The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded. If an Administrative Panel decides that your domain name registration should be canceled or transferred, we will wait ten (10) business days (as observed in the location of our principal office) after we are informed by the applicable Provider of the Administrative Panel's decision before implementing that decision. We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the location of our principal office or of your address as shown in our Whois database. See Paragraphs 1 and 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure for details.) If we receive such documentation within the ten (10) business day period, we will not implement the Administrative Panel's decision, and we will take no further action, until we receive (i) evidence satisfactory to us of a resolution between the parties; (ii) evidence satisfactory to us that your lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn; or (iii) a copy of an order from such court dismissing your lawsuit or ordering that you do not have the right to continue to use your domain name.

So, unpacking that into plain English:

If you get a UDRP decision ordering your name transferred, you have ten days in which to file a suit and notify the registrar. The registrar will not implement the UDRP decision, and will take no further action until they are informed that the parties have settled, or the case has been withdrawn, dismissed or decided.

can anybody who loses a WIPO UDRP file a lawsuit in their local jurisdiction simply to postpone relinquishing the domain and prolong their ownership?

No. Under the UDRP, when the Complainant files the Complaint, they get to choose at least one of two jurisdictions in which they will be subject to court action: (1) the location of the registrant, or (2) the location of the registrar. These options are reasonable, since the registrant is where they are, and the registrant also chose their registrar (and the jurisdiction of that registrar's terms of service). So, those are both jurisdictions to which the registrant has agreed.

Almost as if, appealing the decision, grants the domain owner more ownership time while leaving themselves open to a possible settlement option. So what's the risk type thinking...?

Well, there can be a considerable risk.

In the UDRP, the stakes are keeping or losing the domain name. If you go to litigation, then in many jurisdictions, such as the United States, the other side can bring claims of its own and seek monetary damages. Also, many jurisdictions have "loser pays" rules, so you shouldn't pick a fight you aren't prepared to finish.

In the US, if the other side shows up, and they often do, then you can pretty much count on the other side making affirmative claims against you under the ACPA. That happened in, for example, the Dent v. Lotto case:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4614444/dent-v-lotto-sport-italia-spa/

The domain registrant in that case has won a judgment entitling him to the domain name, the court has awarded some costs in his favor, and we are still awaiting a decision on $245k in fees.

In the VisitQatar.com case, not only did the other side file counterclaims against the domain registrant, but they brought along their friend, Qatar Airways, to make additional claims against the domain registrant. That case is awaiting a decision on whether the joinder of Qatar Airways was proper.

Sometimes, the other side doesn't show up. I have had two cases go that way as well.

But upping the ante from a UDRP to a court case certainly has risks. It's popular for people who don't know any better to hold the opinion that they'd rather fight a case in court than in the UDRP, but the fact of the matter is that the UDRP provides a relatively simple no-cost vehicle to at least present one's arguments in a timely and rational manner. But if one's "response" consists of making accusations against the dispute resolution provider instead of addressing the merits of the claim within the rules, then one is not going to do well. So it is worthwhile to take one's best shot at the UDRP level, without magically thinking that a court case is going to be simple or easy.

Coming back to the procedural status here, certainly the registrar is aware of the fact that the court dismissed the case without a judgment in favor of the domain registrant. So, under the UDRP, the registrar is obligated to implement the decision.

If the registrar does not implement the decision, then the complainant can notify ICANN, and ICANN will likely undertake a compliance inquiry. If the registrar is found to be non-compliant, that can be escalated to an arbitration proceeding between ICANN and the registrar. On the facts here, the registrar's general objection to the UDRP, WIPO, the panelist, etc., are not likely to carry much weight, since the registrar existence is premised on a contract with ICANN in which the registrar is required to implement the UDRP.

 

[bmugford]

I'm in udrp right now for ibmkeyword.com . keyword has nothing to do with computers. I will claim ibm is just 3 letters, which can be shared by many companies, so it is almost like a generic word...I don't want to hijack this thread so this is all I say. In a fair case I would win, but I assume I have 50 percent chance of winning because of corruption.

Really? so out of all the possible 3letter combo+keyboard you registered ibmkeyboard.com? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_keyboard

If you don't drop it, you really deserve the fine and other sides' lawyer fees. Domainers don't support squatting famous trademarks, that's so early 1990's.

keyword =! keyboard

"keyword" has nothing to do with computers.
a keyboard is part of a computer.

so big difference. I didn't mention the exact domain.

I would say you have 5% and that's still generous. You could be selling potency enhancement herbs under microsoft2bighard.com and still lose the domain to Microsoft because of the enormous brand recognition, and IBM has a brand at least as strong.

Also I think it would be wise to ask the mods to split this section from this thread as it's completely off-topic.

IBM is not just three letters. In fact, when I'm defending cases involving short three or four letter domain names, I will usually point out that it is not as if we are talking about IBM, HSBC, BMW, etc..

"which can be shared by many companies" - Oh really? Name a few.

IBM is immediately recognizable as a well known and famous mark.

Currently pending:

D2020-1635
ibmcoronavirus.org

D2020-1650
ibmassist.com

D2020-1684
ibmupdate.com

D2020-1720
ibmconsulting.com

Saying "IBM is just three letters" does not explain why you registered the name and believed it to be valuable. Do you have the same keyword registered with some OTHER just three letters in front of it?

I can assure you that every single one of those IBM(keyword) cases pending before WIPO is going to be decided in favor of IBM or the respondent is going to be smart enough to seek a UDRP rule 17 transfer.

That's not "corruption". That's simple common sense.

ICBC paid 8 figures to buy icbc.com. icbc is as big as ibm, if not bigger.
Same for tesla.com.
Are these companies stupid. And here these domains are more than just confusingly similar.
And yes, I have other LLLkeyword.com ,..I look at intrinsic quality.

IBM paid billions to advertise its brand. But similarly US govt spent billions to hide the fact that
9/11 was an inside job, and moon landings were fake. But I can still defend the truth, and expose
lies.

I don't know if this is your dispute or not, but "IBM" is not just some generic term, especially when not even in actual use.

https://domaingang.com/domain-law/i...es-loses-ibm-acronym-domain-udrp-at-the-wipo/

 

[jberryhill]

So, returning to the topic at hand, I guess the judge is also a corrupt corporate stooge or whatever.

Picking up on a loose end here:

It is not the first time that he has underwhelmed me. Perhaps this is the panelist when you want to secure a bullshit outcome for your UDRP complaint.

Who has further insight on Mr. Swinson?

I do. In the last couple of weeks, Mr. Swinson has issued two RDNH decisions against over-reaching trademark owners, and one of those cases was an LLLL.com case. This is what Mr. Swinson had to say in in the DSPA.com dispute:

----------------------------
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2020-1449

In this case, the Respondent has purchased the Disputed Domain Name from auction as a bona fide purchaser. There is no evidence that the Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name because of the Complainant. Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Complainant has not demonstrated a particular reputation in the Disputed Domain Name or that the four-letter string DSPA is uniquely associated with the Complainant. In fact the Respondent has, with dictionary evidence, demonstrated the contrary.

The Respondent has a portfolio of “four-letter” domain names. It appears that the Respondent is in the business of investing in and reselling four-letter domain names. A number of previous UDRP panels have found that as long as this kind of business is not infringing on a complainant’s rights in a mark, the Policy allows registration and use of domain names for this purpose.
---------------------------

The Respondent in that case filed a response rebutting the Complainant's argument, citing to the Policy and established decisions, and didn't spend a word of it impotently threatening the reputation of an international organization which does not give s--t what people say on a domain blog.

As far as background is concerned, Mr. Swinson is an adjunct professor of law at a university in Australia and a lawyer who works on various commercial issues.

As a UDRP panelist, he ranks third in number of panels to which he has been assigned:

(source: dndisputes.com)

So, let's take a look under the hood of those 495 decisions. As background, the overall case disposition over 20 years at WIPO looks like this:

Now, "terminated" cases don't get a panelist decision (the "others" include split decisions or oddball cases in which a panelist declined to issue a decision for stated reasons, such as an abstention in view of pending litigation).

So, taking "terminated" cases out of the total number of cases, the overall win/loss states are:

Transferred: 33,270 / (33,270 + 9,982 + 575 + 1,173) = 73.9 %

Complaint Denied: 9,982 / (33,270 + 9,982 + 575 + 1,173) = 22.2%

Stopping there for a moment, there are people who say "The Complainant wins nearly 3/4 of the time! That's not fair!"

I don't really understand that. In most criminal trials, for example, the defendant is found guilty. The reason for that is while, sure, sometimes there are things that go wrong, the people who are charged and tried for crimes aren't chosen at random.

The more rational way of looking at the UDRP is to consider that while there have been more than 33,000 disputes filed at WIPO over the course of 20 years, there are more than 140 MILLION domain names registered in .com alone. The likelihood of a domain name getting into a UDRP dispute at random is practically zero. As an aside, take those numbers into account if someone is trying to sell you "domain insurance".

The bottom line on that 73.9% figure is that I'm personally surprised it is that low. If lawyers are doing their job correctly, then that number should be much higher than that.

Back to Mr. Swinson, how does he stack up against a "generic" UDRP panelist:

Well, whaddya know. The win/loss ratio of his decisions are pretty much bang on average. If anything, he is slightly more favorable to Respondents than the average run of cases - finding for Complainants about .5% less often than the overall run of cases.

There is, however, one aspect of his decisions which diverge from average, and that is in the frequency with which he finds Reverse Domain Hi-Jacking.

For example, I have represented parties in the following cases in which Mr. Swinson was a panelist:

https://www.dndisputes.com/search?text=berryhill&panelist_name=swinson

dspa.com
Complaint denied with concurring opinion (RDNH)
WIPO D2020-1449 (Decision Date: Aug. 13, 2020)

cheapstuff.com
Complaint denied (RDNH)
WIPO D2020-1354 (Decision Date: July 14, 2020)

modz.com
Complaint denied (RDNH)
WIPO D2017-2008 (Decision Date: Dec. 21, 2017)

dky.com
Complaint denied (RDNH)
WIPO D2015-1757 (Decision Date: Dec. 15, 2015)

spritzer.com
Complaint denied (RDNH)
WIPO D2014-0557 (Decision Date: May 29, 2014)

simplybusiness.com
Complaint denied with dissenting opinion
WIPO D2010-2069 (Decision Date: March 1, 2011)

valerojobs.com
Transfer
WIPO D2008-0479 (Decision Date: May 27, 2008)

superfuzz.com
Complaint denied
WIPO D2006-1546 (Decision Date: March 9, 2007)

It is worth pointing out that in the valerojobs.com, the domain registrant had instructed me to offer to transfer the domain name to the complainant. The Complainant refused a voluntary transfer, and so the 'response' consisted of a request to have the domain name ordered to be transferred.

You'll also notice that the dky.com dispute was a straightforward LLL.com "domainer" case.

Other "acronym or short" domain cases he's decided are as follows:

https://www.dndisputes.com/search?decision=Complaint+denied&panelist_name=swinson

etg.com.au
hw.com.au
zut.com
lmc.com
mps.mobi

It may simply be that a reasoned response to a UDRP complaint strikes him as more compelling than an email in which:

"...does not fully address the elements of the Policy or contain the required certification (see paragraph 5(c)(viii) of the Rules). Moreover, it makes a number of needless derogatory remarks (and threats) about the UDRP and the Center."

I'm willing to bet that most UDRP panelists expect professional behavior from the CEO of an ICANN accredited registrar.

Indeed, this is something of a pattern, and it is not as if people don't pay attention to UDRP decisions, or conduct research into them when considering a case. For example:

--------------
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2019-1816

"The Registrar/Respondent communicated with the Center on numerous occasions, in some instances making disparaging remarks about the Complainant’s supposed trademark, UDRP, and settlement strategies, attaching UDRP decisions, providing links to blog posts and articles, and demanding that the Panel find the Complainant guilty of abusing the UDRP and attempting Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

...

The Registrar/Respondent is not a casual domain name investor but an accredited ICANN registrar operating a substantial domain name and website hosting business. It had additional time to consider a Response in this proceeding because of the extension for settlement discussions. If the Registrar/Respondent will not state reasons and offer evidence with a certification of accuracy and completeness, the Panel is entitled to draw adverse inferences.

The Panel notes that the Registrar/Respondent or its CEO have been named in many other UDRP proceedings in which they submitted no response (see below). The Registrar/Respondent would be well advised to speak up if it wants to be heard, or to change its practices if they are indefensible.

...

But it is troubling that the Respondent and its CEO Mr. Monster have been respondents in UDRP proceedings that they have neither disputed nor settled, with a similar pattern of exploiting domain names that were found not to have been simply descriptive terms, and sometimes with indications of the use of fake registrant details or cyberflight or a suspiciously delayed registrar lock similar to the post-complaint conduct in the current proceeding. See, e.g., Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. v. Domain Admin, Epik.com Private Registration / Brendan Waights, Biracay Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2017-1284 (transfer ordered, following PPC use of domain name; no response); France Billet v. Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2015-1641 (transfer ordered, following PPC use of domain name and cyberflight; no response); Legião Urbana Produções Artísticas Ltda. and Giuliano Manfredini v. Domain Admin, Epik.com Private Registration / Yoko Sayuri, WIPO Case No. D2013-1855 (transfer ordered, following PPC use; no response); Safra IP Holding CO v. Rob Monster, DigitalTown, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2018-1716 (transfer ordered, following parking and offering domain name for sale; no response); Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. v. Rob Monster, DigitalTown, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2018-1299 (transfer ordered following redirect to registrant’s website and offer to sell domain name; no response); Dürr Aktiengesellschaft v. Rob Monster, Digital Town, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2018-0757 (transfer of all five disputed domain names ordered following use for parking site with offers to sell; no response); Oscar Studio di Cavallin Oscar and 5282 S.R.L v. Rob Monster, WIPO Case No. D2014-2257 (transfer ordered following PPC use; no response). The Panel considers that this history, along with the Respondent’s post-complaint conduct in this proceeding, further supports an inference of bad faith within the meaning of the Policy."

And, again, have I received decisions with which I disagreed? Sure I have. That's normal. Any decision making system run by humans is fallible.

Also, like an emergency room, not all patients show up in the same condition. Some are in worse shape than others. If there is no plausible response, I will typically counsel prospective clients that their best move is to transfer the domain name under Rule 17, and move on. Sometimes, a prospective client might have a marginal defense on what are unlikely but true facts, but they want to defend the case.

So, sure, I've actually won some cases that I thought I would lose and have lost some cases that I thought I should win.

But consistently taking a combative attitude toward the UDRP providers and the process itself, while accumulating a growing list of adverse decisions is just not a sustainable strategy. Putting the work in on an actual UDRP defense which complies with the rules is also a LOT easier than looking for free legal help for a court case from which you are just going to walk away.

But the problem with this case had nothing to do with the panelist.