Justice might be blind, but you shouldn’t be.
In what appears to be the lengthiest UDRP document in recent memory, the domain name Ancestry.pro was ordered to be transferred to the Complainant, Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
The Respondent, registered the domain Ancestry.pro in 2011, after its original registrant since 2004 failed to renew it.
The Complainant, operates the web site Ancestry.com since 1995 and owns several trademarks related to ancestral research and “DNA test kits”, some of which were registered just before the domain Ancestry.pro was registered by the Respondent.
What sets this case apart, is the lengthy tirade that the Respondent engages in, attempting to infuse “common sense” to a matter that clearly requires legal representation.
The cherry on the pie is when the Respondent admits having no background or knowledge of the law, with this statement:
“Respondent is not a lawyer, nor has it any professional legal training or education, but would suspect it violates a lawyer’s code of conduct to knowingly lie which, in this context, represents at least bad faith.”
Everything was set on the table, from alleged lies regarding edited email exchanges, to the definition of the word “counterfeit” with regards to DNA test kits, to the Doctrine of Laches, to filing a claim of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
None of all this impressed the sole panelist, Maninder Singh, however.
Long story short: when you want to keep your domain, you need legal representation instead of self-representation, particularly when you admit you lack the legal background to do so.
For the full, truly lengthy case text on Ancestry.pro, click here.
It is worth noting that Mr. Singh has NEVER ruled in favor of the Respondent, even those with lawyers representing them. I’m not sure why the writer of this article seems to think this case would have been the precedent. Perhaps he/she is a domain lawyer….
Chris – Every case is different. Do you have stats on the panelist you’d like to share? This was a clear case of failure to utilize legal representation. The defense by the Respondent was full of holes.
Singh has done 8 other UDRPs (that I’ve found) and sided with the Complainant on every one. That seems to me a stronger argument than a lawyer saying “You should always use a lawyer”…
Chris – This isn’t football and stats. Respondent screwed up, the arguments were a joke, didn’t use a lawyer and even stated they have no legal background. Any panelist would have judged the same way.
Please keep in mind that hiring an attorney and obtaining a 3 member panel comes at a pretty good expense. Could easily have been 8 to 10K on this one. It wasn’t an option for me. Love your blog and appreciate the commentary as usual. (Ps. Things may have gone slightly worse for Brazil this week than they did for me, but still feeling the loss)
If you allow links in the comments. Here is an interesting read on Maninder Singh regarding his decision on AlamoClub.com:
http://domainnamewire.com/2011/09/07/guy-sues-alamo-car-rental-after-losing-udrp/