When it comes down to UDRP responses by panelists at the WIPO or the National Arbitration Forum, most appear to be formatted in a cookie-cutter “template” manner.
Over the years, some panelists were even accused of copy/pasting their responses from prior cases, leaving back traces of those other UDRP decisions.
But not this panelist.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, delivered a scolding and clearly customized response, when he judged on a case for the domain name, RenegadePowerBoats.com.
The case involved the Complainant, Renegade Power Boats, and its former webmaster who apparently retired to Venezuela and wants nothing to do with domains, or maintaining web sites, for that matter.
Naturally, in this case he did not even respond.
Effectively, the panelist ripped the Complainant a new “hole”, with statements such as these:
- Complainant has utterly failed to make a prima facie showing it is entitled to relief.
- Complainant failed to claim it had any rights to any mark, much less this mark.
- Complainant failed to even assert Respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name, much less present any facts to support such a contention.
- And this is the rub… Reading between the lines, Complainant hired Respondent to program and maintain a web site, which Respondent apparently did since June 13, 2002 (not that Complainant provided any documentary evidence, leaving it up to the Panel).
- Complainant did not object to its “internet house” being owned by a third party, for whatever reason. It would seem to be unreasonable to buy an “internet house” (or even a real house) and allow legal title to be held in someone else’s name, but that is exactly what the parties did.
This case is a prime example why UDRPs are not a substitute for litigation over disputes that should be resolved via a court process instead.
The full case is presented here.
