Thanks, Jim. I managed to obtain it via PACER and was drafting an email, but your email saved me from having to post the PDF.

The relevant text concerning the waiver of immunity appears to begin on page 7:

"The Tribe is also correct that the second provision, UDRP Rules ¶ 3(xii), constitutes a limited waiver. By agreeing to arbitrate under this provision, the Tribe did consent to “submit . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts in at least one specified [jurisdiction],” but only “with respect to any challenges to a decision in the administrative proceedings canceling or transferring the domain name.” UDRP Rules ¶ 3(xii) (emphasis added). The only relevant inquiry here, then, is whether this action can be properly considered to be a challenge to the neutral’s decision to transfer the domain name to the Tribe."

and the on page 8:

"The Tribe does not devote significant effort to describing what a “challenge to [the] decision in the administrative proceedings” would actually look like. However, the Lanham Act explicitly provides for such challenges. “The Lanham Act permits UDRP Respondents to challenge a[n] adverse decision in court.”"

Then the court looked at the various counts of the filing Virtualpoint made, and found that they were not challenges to the UDRP decision itself. Virtualpoint was then given leave to amend the suit, accordingly, so that it fit within that waiver (i.e. frame it directly as a challenge of the UDRP decision).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/