Clarkcm.ca goes to complainant (1 Viewing)

The latest UDRP, we don't get many but this one's worth the read.


CDRP Decisions

Whenever you see "Claude Freeman" as the panelist, it's 100% going to be a "Domain Transferred" - I don't even have to look at the decision as that joker is a corporate lapdog who has never seen a domain he didn't want transferred to his corporate overlords.

He's the poster child for Rogue Panelists and some of the (cough) decisions he's rendered are truly insane.

My question is, does the Complainant get to hand-pick the panelist as good old Claude seems to be part a LOT of 1-panelist CDRPs.

Just read the decision, and while not the usual "Claude Goes to Corporate-Town" type of hijacking, this is essentially a business complaint between a vendor (registrant) and a customer (complainant), and should have been referred to the courts as many UDRPs have been decided in the past.

Panelists have continually found that this is beyond the purview of the UDRP as the domain has clearly NOT been registered in bad faith. This is fact.

But instead good ol' Claude takes out his square peg (possible bad faith withholding today) and hammers it into a decidedly round hole (bad faith initial registration) and is the big hero to his corporate overlords - Claude Freeman business cards all around - call me!

Claude skillfully cuts out a portion of the Bad Faith Registration requirements to read:

"...the Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, lnternet users to the Registrant'swebsite or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's Mark as to thesource, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Registrant's website or location or of a product or serviceon the Registrant's website or location..."

But this application is incorrect as it applies only to the initial registration, and the company has already stated the domain was used by them for years until they switched IT support vendors and "lost" access to the domain. How can you register a domain, use it for years and then suddenly back-date the "bad faith" portion?

That's kindergarten crap you see getting a RDNH and laughed at by the Domain King. So Claude either doesn't understand the UDRP/CDRP or is willfully misapplying the clear regulations for the complainant's benefit. This "business dispute" should have immediately been tossed out and sent to real court for a decision, but that's not the "Claude Freeman Way TM*".

I can just imagine Claude getting this case and I guarantee his very first thought is "How in the world am I going to get Clark Construction back this domain?". Then he starts backflipping and you can see the result.

* The complainant must always win, no matter what.

DomainRecap said:

is willfully misapplying the clear regulations for the complainant's benefit

Click to expand...

bingo. consistent rogue decisions are self serving as every complainant will pick him. It would be interesting to tally the number of times each panelist was selected and the number of times each panelist actually made it onto a panel. Would also be interesting to see the tally for single panelist decisions made.

DomainRecap said:

My question is, does the Complainant get to hand-pick the panelist as good old Claude seems to be part a LOT of 1-panelist CDRPs.

Click to expand...

If the respondant doesn't respond to the complaint, then yes. Claude wins cases when there is no response because there is no mechanisim to prevent him from making any decision he wants in a single panelist decision - rogue or not. In your response to a complaint, you get to choose the panelists you want. The complainant gets to choose the panelists they want. If any selected are the same, they get added to the panel. Any remaining open spots on the panel are randomly filled from the pool that were NOT selected by either party. This is precisely why it is SOOOO important to always respond.

rlm said:

If the respondant doesn't respond to the complaint, then yes.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely nuts and ripe for abuse, and if there is no response made, the panelist should be randomly selected.

DomainRecap said:

That's absolutely nuts and ripe for abuse, and if there is no response made, the panelist should be randomly selected.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's the case, in the absence of a response, the complainant gets to choose whether they want a single or 3-person panel as well as put forth their requests for panelists. This is why it is so important to always respond or even settle. Allowing it to go to the panel with no response is the worst possible thing you can do.