- Impact
- 5,127
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
https://domaingang.com/domain-law/b...owner-wanted-500000-dollars-got-udrp-instead/
This UDRP is the definition of insanity, as in order for this ruling to be valid, the respondent would need to own a time machine (Bulu.com registered by the Respondent in 2002, the Bulu Box company only existed circa 2012, the Bulu TM in 2018), as well the other rationales and assertions for meeting the 3 criteria are just as crazy.
For example, the Complainant initiated a sales discussion and made an offer first, but then later in the UDRP, Upchurch states that "the Panel uses Respondent’s offering of the domain name for sale directly to the Complainant as evidence of bad faith Policy". Uh no, that's not what that happened and it's not what the case precedent means.
Furthermore, the panelist writes "Further, Complainant contends that Respondent has registered over 7,000 domain names and the record is void of evidence of good-faith... Accordingly, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered the <bulu.com> domain name in bad faith based on Respondent’s prior history of registering confusingly similar domain names."
So if you own a lot of domains, you'll automatically lose the UDRP? Interesting take on the process.
It just gets better and better the more you read, and this is truly "The Room" of UDRPs here. By the end I was really starting to wonder if Mr Upchurch had any previous experience in the UDRP process and was possibly being led up the garden path by a devious Complainant?
Certainly, having a lawyer present might have helped the Respondent, but there have been many similar UDRPs that were quickly nipped in the bud by the inalienable fact that a domain registered by the respondent prior to the existence of the Complainant's company and its TM makes the UDRP automatically invalid, and very likely render a finding of RDNH.
Maybe by using the reality of time and space, the Respondent didn't even think he would need to fight this? It's just basic math and the fact that a time machine would be required to find in favor of the Complainant.
https://domaingang.com/domain-law/b...owner-wanted-500000-dollars-got-udrp-instead/
This UDRP is the definition of insanity, as in order for this ruling to be valid, the respondent would need to own a time machine (Bulu.com registered by the Respondent in 2002, the Bulu Box company only existed circa 2012, the Bulu TM in 2018), as well the other rationales and assertions for meeting the 3 criteria are just as crazy.
For example, the Complainant initiated a sales discussion and made an offer first, but then later in the UDRP, Upchurch states that "the Panel uses Respondent’s offering of the domain name for sale directly to the Complainant as evidence of bad faith Policy". Uh no, that's not what that happened and it's not what the case precedent means.
Furthermore, the panelist writes "Further, Complainant contends that Respondent has registered over 7,000 domain names and the record is void of evidence of good-faith... Accordingly, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered the <bulu.com> domain name in bad faith based on Respondent’s prior history of registering confusingly similar domain names."
So if you own a lot of domains, you'll automatically lose the UDRP? Interesting take on the process.
It just gets better and better the more you read, and this is truly "The Room" of UDRPs here. By the end I was really starting to wonder if Mr Upchurch had any previous experience in the UDRP process and was possibly being led up the garden path by a devious Complainant?
Certainly, having a lawyer present might have helped the Respondent, but there have been many similar UDRPs that were quickly nipped in the bud by the inalienable fact that a domain registered by the respondent prior to the existence of the Complainant's company and its TM makes the UDRP automatically invalid, and very likely render a finding of RDNH.
Maybe by using the reality of time and space, the Respondent didn't even think he would need to fight this? It's just basic math and the fact that a time machine would be required to find in favor of the Complainant.
Last edited:
