Unibet.ca CDRP (1 Viewing)

DomainRecap said:

Good old Claude Freeman refers to the local Winnipeg Assiniboine Credit Union Limited as if it were right up there with Canadian Tire, Loblaws, Amazon, and Walmart in terms of name recognition.

Click to expand...

I had a good laugh at this

[twitter=https://twitter.com/ciidrc/status/1499150831710621697][/twitter]

It looks like old Claude is at it again, and giving away domains like candy.

I read the entire CDRP and there is some bizarre crap in there - Claude parrots everything the complainant says like it was gold, and makes it seem the domain owner was trying to steal the Complainant's TM and fool customers, when in reality, no such thing happened.

He smoothly plays the role of accepting all assertations by the complainant as true without verification, such as their claim to be the lone mark usage (and therefore unique), which is a half-truth for their specific line of business, but there are tons of other companies using their supposedly-unique Waycon mark, such as Waycon Distributors, Waycon Construction, Waycon Investments, Waycon Contracting, Waycon Holdings, etc., etc.

It took me 2 seconds to confirm this "fact" is not entirely true, so why didn't Claude run a search on Waycon businesses in operation in Canada?

The entire CDRP reads like a disingenuous attempt to paint Waycon, with a single location at 275 Waterloo Ave in Penticton, BC, as a "WELL KNOWN CANADIAN BRAND" (I've never heard of them), a ploy Claude also used in the ACU.ca heist. To Claude, anyone with a valid corporate registration looks like Loblaws, Canadian Tire, and Walmart combined.

Apparently they're in the high-profile Fruit Processing business, and according to their founder John O’Connell, “We're a well established name in the cherry industry,” Well... there you go, case closed. He's the King of Cherryland, give him every domain we own!!

Claude's rationale for bad faith was that the domain owner could only have had Waycon Manufacturing (and their high-level cherry profile) in mind when registering ithe domain and not the myriad other Waycons, and that their non-resolving URL was designed to deviously fake the Waycon.net site and steal their customers and data. Huh?

This last part is an obvious misuse of the CDRP policy, as that section pertains to fraudulent or unlicensed sites who try to duplicate a legitimate site or business (this did NOT occur here) but Claude somehow feels just the act of registering a domain automatically qualifies, and doesn't seem above using any weapon in his arsenal in order to give away domains to his corporate overlords.

Remember kids, if you get served a CDRP and you see Claude Freeman on the docket, it's already a lost cause.

The panelist has apparently tried to make a name for himself so that he always gets selected by every complainant, like any other lawyer who skews the facts, omits the inconvenient facts, or even blatantly lies to win a case. The problem here is that he's not supposed to be representing the complainant, he's supposed to be an independent arbitrator.

However, as a respondent, you can easily ensure he is NOT on the panel. All you have to do is respond. And if you don't respond, you have given up your right to complain about the system.

I've never looked into this, but is there any way a panelist can be removed for repeatedly not following rules and procedures. You'd think that always favoring the complainant is clear enough evidence he's not actually impartial and that he seems to have his own personal agenda here.

wonder what would happen if we collectively started a petition here to oust him.

Together we probably hold significant .ca inventory

rlm said:

However, as a respondent, you can easily ensure he is NOT on the panel. All you have to do is respond. And if you don't respond, you have given up your right to complain about the system.

Click to expand...

How does that work?

I never thought complainants could "hand pick" the panelists, as that's pretty scammy and wide open to abuse, and I just assumed it was randomized. But like a jury selection, can the respondent "oppose" their hand-selected yes men like Claude?

DomainRecap said:

But like a jury selection, can the respondent "oppose" their hand-selected yes men like Claude?

Click to expand...

If that is true we all have to bookmark this topic so we remember this guys name if a CDRP comes calling.

Make sure your contact email is correct as they only notify you by email that proceedings have begun.

Check your spam box regularly as their email seems to go there (probably the main reason why many registrants don’t respond).

Always choose a 3 member panel.

But according to Esdiel's examination of the CDRP, the complainant has to contact you through the CIRA email form to try and resolve the dispute beforehand, and only 14 days after that can they file a CDRP.

If I ever get a CDRP notice out of the blue, that will be my first response, as well as a request for a copy of the original email receipt from the CIRA should the complainant try the old "Uh.... we emailed but there was no reply".

That will buy you another 14 days to prepare as well as clear evidence of the complainant's bad faith intentions towards the CDRP.

e) The Requestor or their authorized representative must have both: (a) attempted to send a message regarding the Dispute to the Registrant through the Interested Party Contact Procedure (accessible on the CIRA website), no less than 14 calendar days prior to this request; and (b) was not able to resolve the Dispute through this mechanism. Communications through other means, or regarding other matters, do not satisfy this requirement.

Click to expand...

And doesn't requesting 3 panelists incur a $$$ fee?

DomainRecap said:

And doesn't requesting 3 panelists incur a $$$ fee?

Click to expand...

Defendant pays no fees to Cira.

Choosing 3 panelists incurs no fees.

Develop said:

Defendant pays no fees to Cira.

Choosing 3 panelists incurs no fees.

Click to expand...

Thanks - that's good to know.

Develop said:

Defendant pays no fees to Cira.

Choosing 3 panelists incurs no fees.

Click to expand...

True.

For one name, it starts at $1837.50 for a single-member panel and $3150 for a 3-member panel. If the Defendant doesn't respond the default is a single-member panel. If the Defendant responds it can go to 3-members

For multiple names, the prices goes up

https://ciidrc.org/cdrp-process-graphic/cdrp-fee-schedule/



Guess there could always be a lawsuit afterwards to recoup the fees, but within the CDRP process, the costs are incurred by the Complainant