Georges:

Nice try, but Parvi.org is a default judgment, but is included, and is
even explicitly labelled as such!

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/

This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you
scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared
to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against
them?

Sincerely,

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






On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges
<ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
> George K
>
> I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive.  In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed.  The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed.  Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter.  This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits.  I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision.  Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults.  In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name.  Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort.  There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default.  So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I draw folks' attention to the page at:
>
> http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
>
> which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name.
> Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
>
> No other changes were made.
>
> I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
>
> This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
>
> This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
> ________________________________
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
>
> ________________________________
>
> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.