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

Suspended
Default

09/15/2015

1676556

boucheron.pub

Boucheron Holding SAS v. zhouhaotian et al.

URS

05/25/2016

Claim Denied
Default

06/12/2016


Best,

Jon
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg