One Last Shot at "Worst Decision of the Day" - Now Ongoing

[IAmAllanShore]

Ongoing thread - will be posting questionable/bad decisions :imho:



First: QE2.com

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0807.html

Related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QE2
http://whois.domaintools.com/qe2.com

Of note: Registered through a host that possibly did not forward any of the complaint info on; yet another reason not to host register with your host.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/31/internet.qe2.reut/

WIPO has handled some 10,500 such cases of "cybersquatting," where outsiders register domain names to which they have no genuine claim in order to divert browsers to their own sites or to sell the rights to the site to interested parties

Archive.org is clean of there ever being a use that conflicted/competed with the ship:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://qe2.com

Flame me,
-Allan :gl:

 

[NeeJam]

http://www.namepros.com/industry-news/356263-company-forced-give-up-domain-qe2.html

 

[DNQuest.com]

Sorry Allan, they didn't respond. So the outcome is not surprising. I did make mention my feelings in another thread.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

"Not surprising" does not equal "correct", of course (Not insinuating that you thought otherwise, btw.).

This one really irks me. Sorry for the effective double post - since the decision was a recent publish I forgot the delay meant the story probably had already been "broken" elsewhere

-Allan :gl:

 

[DNQuest.com]

Just like real court, you can only make decisions on what is presented. Things can only be corrected if it is pointed out.

Unfortunately, it never matters what I think

 

[labrocca]

You get this one Allan...bad decision of the month even.

It appears more and more that a non-response will lose you the domain. I see no wrongdoing by the original registrant. So basically the panels appear to screw you if you park, don't respond, or don't develop. Frustrating and this just gives companies willing to file an automatic win over the average layman.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

I've decided I'm going to turn this into a running thread...

Today's: DrunkenHobbit.com

Decision: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0685.html

Etimology of the word predating JRRT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbit_(word)

Another non-response, but look at the google search results for "hobbit" and ask yourself if we're about to have a mass de-hobbitization of the WWW or what?

-Allan :gl:

 

[labrocca]

DrunkenHobbit is a nearly worthless name anyway.

 

[DNQuest.com]

"Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith for commercial gain to misleadingly divert Internet users to a pornographic website."

If you don't respond to a UDRP and the evidence shows the above to be true, how can it be a bad decision? I hope everyone knows my view on overreaching, but if the comapny is not challenged, then it can't be a bad decision by the panel, just a bad decision to not respond.

Allan, not that I am looking to just disagree, but to me, a bad decision is when a respondant actually responds and has a decent arguement to disprove at least one of the criteria for UDRPs. And then the panel still makes a assumptions instead of looking at teh facts and rules in favor of the TM holder.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Allan, not that I am looking to just disagree, but to me, a bad decision is when a respondant actually responds and has a decent arguement to disprove at least one of the criteria for UDRPs. And then the panel still makes a assumptions instead of looking at teh facts and rules in favor of the TM holder.

I, on the other hand, think that no response should be necessary (I too have made this point dozens of times - nothing new from me here.)

For example, if the owner of Box.com was UDRP'd by the owners of the TM "The Box" (Yes, it exists.), I would hope that no UDRP would be required despite the domain name being parked.

While "Hobbit" isn't as generic, the USPTO apparently thinks it is...

Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead
1 78793163 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
2 78972525 HOBBIT TARR LIVE
3 78572111 HOBBIT TRAVEL TARR LIVE
4 78345899 HOBBIT TARR LIVE
5 78345895 HOBBIT TARR LIVE
6 78345892 HOBBIT TARR LIVE
7 78345887 HOBBIT TARR LIVE
8 78305701 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
9 78277643 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
10 78094441 HOBBIT HOMES TARR DEAD
11 77198308 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
12 77197272 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
13 77197296 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
14 77197289 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
15 77197287 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
16 77197284 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
17 77197282 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
18 77197257 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
19 77197251 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
20 77197242 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
21 77197237 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
22 77197235 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
23 77197227 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
24 77184021 HOBBIT TARR LIVE
25 76429750 3245235 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
26 76319166 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
27 76429761 THE HOBBIT TARR DEAD
28 76977310 2949370 THE HOBBIT TARR LIVE
29 76976831 2897941 HOBBIT TARR LIVE
30 76276576 HOBBITS TARR DEAD
31 76164934 2976573 HOBBIT TARR LIVE
32 76096365 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
33 75500192 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
34 75500191 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
35 74266484 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
36 73564794 1396448 HOB-BITS TARR LIVE
37 73513956 1348395 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
38 73425104 1327513 PURVEYORS OF MEMORIES HOBBITS TARR DEAD
39 73350907 HOBBIT HOAGIES TARR DEAD
40 73337595 "HOBBIT" TARR DEAD
41 73332177 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
42 73163213 1137599 HOBBIT HOUSE TARR DEAD
43 73163061 1129539 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
44 73124981 1099562 HOBBIT TARR DEAD
45 73124395 1230026 HOBBIT TARR LIVE
46 73042154 1034336 HOBBIT HOUSE TARR DEAD
47 80986370 0986370 MAKE HOBBIT A HABIT TARR DEAD
48 80985847 0985847 HOBBIT HIDEAWAY TARR DEAD
49 80985846 0985846 HOBBIT TARR DEAD

I guess bottom line here is that the decision reads like so many others, "Yeah, they could be doing it, so let's assume so." I understand the parallels to the legal system (Default, etc.), but I still do not believe they are valid as the standards of notice and notice pleadings are so very different.

Well, I'm going further down the rabbit trail, so I'll stop - but I'm still going to post decisions that are poor/questionable/bad - maybe even start a "rating" system of sorts

-Allan :gl:

 

[jberryhill]

DrunkenHobbit is a nearly worthless name anyway.

Not everything is about money. Take a look at the page there now....


I will say that if I made a decent amount of money from this website I would have gone to battle with them over this "Hobbit" claims and the Trademark they filed for and have simply to prove a point, however it is not worth my effort, time or money to do so. Unlike specific companies which claim in certain things or feel that everything is based on what they have done and accomplished I'm an honest person. Fact of the matter is, I have never seen or read one single Tolkien book of Movie ever, I am not aware of any characters or even the plot of the entire series, regardless of how successful they feel the movie is, the fact remains that ion THIS COUNTRY there are hard working people such as myself, or better yet people such as myself that do things out of fun. The Drunken Hobbit was created by me as a site about a friend of mine that Looked like a furry midget,

[...]

Again I'm a busy guy and this website was developed for fun, not because I knew about someone else's material, nor do I care. Honestly in my opinion which I am allowed to have in THIS COUNTRY, is that the people behind these claims truly need to find something else to put their energy into.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Another one for today:

SOY.fr

I can't read it, I just know it's bad. ("I know it when I see it")
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/dfr2007-0011.html

 

[IAmAllanShore]

decoderpro.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0763.html

-Allan :gl:

 

[DNQuest.com]

Sorry Allan, no response, don't expect to win.

 

[Dave_Z]

Sorry Allan, no response, don't expect to win.

Especially if the complainant has satisfied all 3 conditions.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Especially if the complainant has satisfied all 3 conditions.

Which can be easy to do since noone bothers to refute the allegations or show established rights.

 

[mwzd]

Allan, have a lot of respect for you, but have to disagree about the 'no reply' status.

Even in a court of law, if the accused is not present (personally or via counsel) the courts do pronounce him 'absconding', making him a 'proclaimed' offender, even before the case itself is heard at times.

Why would domains be any different, in fact, it's a commercial case - if you can't be bothered about the domain (which is essentially your property till your registration runs out) why would anyone else?

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Will respond to MWZD in a bit - things are crazy at the moment

That being said, here is one WITH a response.
Edit - I mentioned things were crazy and I misread the decision text in the WIPO email, and then when I saw the reasoning was shocked that the panelist could come to the conclusion I thought I read. My mistake - completely Will leave this here as a record of my being a dumbarse

iPulse.com (And the complainant was not Apple, etc.)

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0724.html

-Allan :gl:

 

[mwzd]

Well the complaint was denied on this one.

So all good methinks,

Plus the trademark was done two years after the domain was registered.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Mea culpa - see edit in post above. That's what I get for trying to do 30 things at once

-Allan :gl: