Fordirect.com - UDRP dispute rejected due to contamination (1 Viewing)

MapleDots

MapleDots.ca
Community Guide
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Topics
1,295
Posts
5,425
Likes
5,537
From
Toronto, ON
Screenshot (40).png



Panelists dispute how much private research panelists can undertake.


Two panelists in a World Intellectual Property Organization case have rejected the dispute based on the actions of the presiding panelist.

In one of the most bizarre UDRP cases I’ve ever read (pdf), panelists Sandra Franklin and Neil Anthony Brown argued that the presiding panelist, Reyes Campello Estebaranz, did too much private research of her own. Brown said she “contaminated” the case with private research. Estebaranz disagreed, saying she “deplores the direction which the majority members of this Panel have deemed fit to give to this case”.

There are a lot of harsh words between panelists, which is very rare.

The case involved the domain fordirect .com. Ford Motor Company argued that that the domain is cybersquatting on its Ford Direct trademark.


Source: UDRP case "contaminated" by presiding panelist - Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
 
Nice to see panelists keeping other panelists in check. Makes a great precedent for them to keep in mind.

Also makes me think of the recent ycd.ca and how I felt the panel made the complainant’s case and arguments for them.
 
Very strange thing here.

I feel same as points made above, I thought the Ycd case was fought by panelist and took so many things out of context and was not factual, the most ironic part is the one of panelist in case above appears to be same as in YCD case. In one case he says panelist did too much, seems very ironic.
 
Last edited:
Nice catch. Brown was panelist in both cases but in this case he was one of the two panelist to complain about the other panelist going too far. Ironic indeed.
 
Makes you wonder how often there are panels where this happens but panelist(s) decide to just not say anything and go with the flow to avoid embarrassment.

Speaking up against another panelist is essentially a huge slap to the face and brings into question the integrity of decision-makers and therefore the entire system. The fact there were two panelists who felt the same in this case probably made it a lot easier to speak up. Not sure it would have gone this way if only one panelist had concerns.

EDIT: I'm not sure we should call this case "bizarre" either as it may be rather significant in terms of highlighting how common this problem might be. After being called out for going too far, that panelist amended her draft decision to remove the additional research she did but they still felt she based her decision on that research. So how often do we have panelists doing their own extensive research to make decisions but make no mention of it in their written decisions?
 
Last edited:
Take a look at the dates, too. The majority position was dated June 12 & June 13. The dissent was dated June 24.

But WIPO sat on it and didn't publish it until October?

And they still haven't added the court decision regarding celluvation.com, which overturned a UDRP decision:

Stanley Pace wins Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Decision in Court, Overturning UDRP

to their page at:

Select UDRP-related Court Cases

despite me bringing it to their attention more than a month ago (I used their contact form, and also on social media and my blog).
 
Last edited:

Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free for everyone.

Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free.

Members who recently read this topic: 1

Back