I don't want to comment on other Examiner's decisions, but my general opinion is that also URS decisions are more understandable for both parties if Examiners are making some further comments on each finding (meaning more than just a "yes" or "no"...) / Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 7 februari 2018 18:02:07 +01:00, skrev Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>:
I wanted to point out two default cases between the same complainant and respondent relating to the same domain name that came our differently about 9 months apart.
I am not commenting on the substance or what it means (I assume that there will be differing interpretations), but just wanted to share them with the group.
1635446 boucheron.pub Boucheron Holding SAS v. zhouhaotian et al. URS 08/31/2015 SuspendedDefault <http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1635446D.htm>09/15/20151676556 boucheron.pub Boucheron Holding SAS v. zhouhaotian et al. URS 05/25/2016 Claim DeniedDefault <http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1676556D.htm>06/12/2016 Best,
Jon
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
