An interesting UDRP brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission
Hi folks, There was an interesting UDRP brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-0200 The SEC is an agency of the US government. While they are not an IGO (and we do have UDRP cases already with IGOs), and thus the "immunity" issue isn't engaged, it's useful as another demonstration that even government agencies are able to successfully use the UDRP. "Public interest" didn't "require" that a special process be created just for them, as the IGOs have repeatedly demanded. Nor did they seek a subsidy in fees (despite the US government's $20 trillion debt). They were able to successfully navigate the existing alternative dispute resolution procedures, although they could have also chosen to use the courts. They even appeared to have done so with internal representation, without spending on outside lawyers. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Thanks for bringing this interesting case to our attention. One factor in the SEC's willingness to file this particular action might have been the ironclad assurance that any judicial appeal would be to a US Court. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:39 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] An interesting UDRP brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission Hi folks, There was an interesting UDRP brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-0200 The SEC is an agency of the US government. While they are not an IGO (and we do have UDRP cases already with IGOs), and thus the "immunity" issue isn't engaged, it's useful as another demonstration that even government agencies are able to successfully use the UDRP. "Public interest" didn't "require" that a special process be created just for them, as the IGOs have repeatedly demanded. Nor did they seek a subsidy in fees (despite the US government's $20 trillion debt). They were able to successfully navigate the existing alternative dispute resolution procedures, although they could have also chosen to use the courts. They even appeared to have done so with internal representation, without spending on outside lawyers. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14262 - Release Date: 04/07/17
Correct, the immunity issue isn't really engaged in this case. The issues that are illustrated are: 1. public interest -- "we're a special snowflake, and so we require special rules tailored for us because all the good we do in the word" -- same could be said about the SEC, but they could live with the UDRP. Public interest argument of IGOs is thus answered. 2. fees -- "UDRP costs divert precious resources from our special mission" -- same could be said about the SEC (and many others, both in the public and private sectors), but the SEC didn't seek a subsidy either. Fees argument of IGOs is also answered (although our report did offer olive branches there). Since those were 2 of the major themes in the IGOs' arguments, it narrows things to immunity. I think our work on that, with Professor Swaine's research as well as the workarounds we identified, is stellar. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Thanks for bringing this interesting case to our attention.
One factor in the SEC's willingness to file this particular action might have been the ironclad assurance that any judicial appeal would be to a US Court.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:39 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] An interesting UDRP brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission
Hi folks,
There was an interesting UDRP brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-0200
The SEC is an agency of the US government. While they are not an IGO (and we do have UDRP cases already with IGOs), and thus the "immunity" issue isn't engaged, it's useful as another demonstration that even government agencies are able to successfully use the UDRP.
"Public interest" didn't "require" that a special process be created just for them, as the IGOs have repeatedly demanded. Nor did they seek a subsidy in fees (despite the US government's $20 trillion debt). They were able to successfully navigate the existing alternative dispute resolution procedures, although they could have also chosen to use the courts. They even appeared to have done so with internal representation, without spending on outside lawyers.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14262 - Release Date: 04/07/17
participants (2)
-
George Kirikos -
Phil Corwin