I believe that it is important to review the complaints and facts described in both cases in order to get a conclusion and know more about the applicants too.

Hector

Héctor Ariel Manoff
Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen
Viamonte 1145 10º Piso
C1053ABW Buenos Aires
República Argentina
Te: (54-11) 4371-6100
Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365
E-mail: amanoff@vmf.com.ar
Web: http://www.vmf.com.ar

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

Esta comunicación tiene como destinatario a la persona o empresa a la cual está dirigida y puede contener información confidencial y reservada. Si el lector de este mensaje no es el destinatario o sus empleados o representantes, deberá proceder a reenviar el presente a su remitente. La distribución, diseminación o copiado de este mensaje podría constituir violación a la ley. Gracias.

This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. Thank you.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

De: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Paul Keating
Enviado el: miércoles, 7 de febrero de 2018 15:11
Para: Corwin, Philip; jon@donuts.email; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Asunto: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Two URS decisions of note

Phil,

I think you have them reversed in time-order.

The summary ruling without facts was the latest one (September 2015) and suspended the domain.

The more detailed ruling was the earlier one (May 2015) and resulted in a denial of the complaint.

Paul

From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 6:56 PM
To: Paul Keating <paul@law.es>, "jon@donuts.email" <jon@donuts.email>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Two URS decisions of note

Speaking solely in a personal capacity, the first decision is of the minimalist variety that concerns me, as there is no mention of either the trademark at issue or what if any content was at the website. Requiring a recitation of such essential facts would add no significant burdento the examiner’s task and would make review of future URS decisions much more meaningful.

The second decision probably goes above and beyond what is required in a URS case, but is welcome nonetheless (other than the lack of explanation of how the same domain/registrant wound up in a second URS less than a year after the prior one). The examiner notes that the website is dark and, rather than basing a suspension on application of the passive holding doctrine (which I would accept as a result if warranted)declined to suspend on the ground that bad faith use was merely speculative.

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 12:21 PM
To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Two URS decisions of note

Interesting.

The lack of any references in the 5446 decision to the trademark or any use of the domain precludes confirmation that the standard has in fact been met.  This I would say is a quintessential example of a problem.  The decision itself must at least contain the facts that were found so as to support the decision.

ALSO, this raises the issue of the 2nd bite at the apple.  We have no idea if the facts changed during the 9 month period (e.g. Was there any conflicting use of the domain).  The decision is  simply devoid of any references.

This speaks both to a possible lack of application of the proper standard.  However, it also tends to show that the panelists are not well informed as to what is required in any decision.  This would seem to be an NAF issue resulting from a lack of administrative review of the decision for complaince AND in ensuring that panelists are properly educated and qualified.

Paul

From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>
Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 6:02 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Two URS decisions of note

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