Foundations World Inc. Files UDRP On Ammar Kubba's Gaggle.com (2 Viewing)

Complaint denied

Canadian domain investors need to research and cite the above the next time they get hit with a bogus CDRP.

CDRP panelists often cite WIPO publications and UDRP decisions in support of their decisions, but yet they don't seem to ever explicitly acknowledge (in writing) that domain investing has also been recognized as a legitimate business.

CDRP panelists might agree domain investing is a legitimate business but it's almost like they are deliberately avoiding making any mention of it, but yet they'll use UDRP decisions to support decisions in favour of complainants. It's not fair, and it's obvious they try to avoid making any mention of it in written decisions (even if they agree).

PS: They have quoted respondents who make the argument that domain investing is legitimate business, but I dont think they've ever acknowledged explicitly that it is legitimate or that they agree.

It's obvious they don't agree, as clearly evidenced by many bizarre CDRP decisions.

I've been seeing the UDRP panelists cleaning things up a bit, and I think a lot of it is due to some big-time social influencer domain investors calling out their questionable decisions. I don't see anyone doing the same to .CA corporate lapdogs like Claude Freeman.

I suppose we can't put them all in the same basket, and some probably/obviously don't agree like you said, but I think some obviously do too. Otherwise almost every domain investor who makes the argument would/should probably lose, which isn't the case.

Those who might agree are just reluctant to be the first to acknowledge/confirm it in a written decision i think, but they also don't make any statements explicitly saying they disagree either.

Doesn't seem like something they want to touch on regardless of their position, and part of the problem might be that a lot of cases before them involve blatant bad faith/TM infringement.