The Applicant Guidebook is not finished, but will it be approved?

ICANN has published the seventh version of its Applicant Guidebook – no longer “draft” and no longer “proposed final” – for the new generic top-level domains program.
It’s arguably unfinished in its current state, but it looks like it’s being positioned for approval in just a few weeks, at ICANN’s planned June 20 board of directors meeting in Singapore.
One of ICANN’s stated aims was to provide a gTLD evaluation process that was not only uniform but also predictable. Applicants needed to know what they’re getting into before applying.
On the latter grounds, today’s Guidebook arguably fails.
The most notable change since the April draft is, for my money, the addition of text warning that ICANN may make binding changes to the Guidebook after the application process has started.
The very last paragraph of the document (pdf), the new fourteenth entry in the Terms & Conditions, is worth quoting is in its entirety:

ICANN reserves the right to make reasonable updates and changes to this applicant guidebook and to the application process at any time by posting notice of such updates and changes to the ICANN website, including as the possible result of new policies that might be adopted or advice to ICANN from ICANN advisory committees during the course of the application process. Applicant acknowledges that ICANN may make such updates and changes and agrees that its application will be subject to any such updates and changes. In the event that Applicant has completed and submitted its application prior to such updates or changes and Applicant can demonstrate to ICANN that compliance with such updates or changes would present a material hardship to Applicant, then ICANN will work with Applicant in good faith to attempt to make reasonable accommodations in order to mitigate any negative consequences for Applicant to the extent possible consistent with ICANN’s mission to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems.

My translation: 1) this baby is probably going to get approved before it’s finished, 2) we may spring a new policy on you after you’ve already laid down your $185,000 and 3) if the new policy screws with your application, we may give you special privileges.
Not much predictability there, but ample scope for controversy.
The new version of the Guidebook makes a reasonable attempt at highlighting some areas where it’s not ready, and where new policies may emerge, with placeholder text.
For example, the Guidebook notes that “ICANN may establish a means for providing financial assistance to eligible applicants” but does not say how much, or who will be eligible.
This developing nation support mechanism is currently one of the Governmental Advisory Committee’s biggest concerns, but it looks like it’s destined to be dealt with in a parallel process, possibly after the Guidebook has been approved.
In addition, prices for evaluation procedures such as the Registry Services Review and the Community Priority Evaluation have not yet been set, because contractors have not been selected.
Those two unresolved issues mean that the Guidebook as it stands today does not even inform several categories of applicant how much they can expect to pay to apply.
There’s continued uncertainty over objections procedures, also. The process whereby the GAC can object to applications has not yet been finalized. The Guidebook notes:

The GAC has expressed the intention to create, in discussion with the ICANN Board, “a mutually agreed and understandable formulation for the communication of actionable GAC consensus advice regarding proposed new gTLD strings.”

So if you’re thinking about a potentially sensitive string (.gay, .god), or a gTLD for a regulated industry (.bank, .pharma), the Guidebook currently offers limited visibility into the extent that your fate would be in the hands of national governments.
If you’re a .brand applicant, and you want to use domains such as europe.brand or usa.brand, the Guidebook currently offers no guidance on how those restricted geographic terms can be released for use. It says further policy work is needed.
Given the updated Ts&Cs quoted above, and the new section “1.2.11 Updates to the Applicant Guidebook”, which says pretty much the same thing, it looks like ICANN staff have prepared a document they expect the board to approve just three weeks from now.
The schedule for the Singapore meeting, published overnight, sets aside a 90-minute slot for the board to convene to discuss the Guidebook on June 20. It says:

In this session ICANN Board of directors will evaluate the current status of the New gTLD Program and consider the approval of the Final Applicant Guidebook.

My hunch is that we’re looking at some kind of face-saving “approval with caveats” resolution, leaving the Guidebook in a technically “approved” state but still open to significant amendments.
That’s if the GAC will let it, of course.
The new Guidebook makes a few cosmetic changes to its trademark protection mechanisms, but not much that seems to address the GAC’s specific outstanding concerns. Nor does it accept the GAC’s latest recommendations related to its objections powers.
Whether this is an indication that ICANN has given the GAC as much as it is prepared to, or an indication that changes could still be made, remains to be seen.

3 Comments Tagged: applicant guidebook, ICANN, new TLDs

Controversial TLD blocking still controversial

ICANN and its Governmental Advisory Committee have yet to reach agreement on when and how governments should be able to block top-level domains deemed too controversial to go live.
In its latest advice to ICANN’s board (pdf), the GAC gets a bit sniffy in response to calls for it to be more transparent about how such objections are raised.
The Applicant Guidebook currently requires ICANN to take GAC objections to TLD applications seriously, but only if the GAC reveals which nation(s) objected and why.
The GAC, predictably, seems to think ICANN is trying to undermine its authority. At the very least, it doesn’t like being told what to do:

The GAC advises the Board that the current text in Module 3 that seemingly dictates to the GAC how to develop consensus advice is problematic and should be deleted, as it is inconsistent with the ICANN Bylaws and the GAC’s Operating Principles.

The GAC has offered to refine its procedures to make “consensus advice” a more meaningful term, such as by adopting the UN’s definition of consensus, however.
Some believe that giving the GAC a carte blanche to file objections from its opaque decision-making black box will lead to back-room horse-trading.
You might find a bloc of theocratic nations, for example, refusing to agree to an objection to .nazi (an improbable application, admittedly) unless other governments agree to object to .gay.
And some observers in the west don’t trust their own governments to stand up for their principles and resist this kind of deal-making, particularly when there’s no transparency into the process.
The GAC, meanwhile, does not think the objections process has been sufficiently squared away for it to agree to it. It wrote:

The GAC strongly believes that further discussions are needed between the GAC and the ICANN Board to find a mutually agreed and understandable formulation for the communication of actionable GAC consensus advice regarding proposed new gTLD strings.

ICANN is due to publish the seventh (and “final”) draft of its Guidebook tonight. Its board is due to meet with the GAC next June 19, one day before it plans to vote on the program.

1 Comment Tagged: gac, ICANN, mopo, new TLDs

Facebok.com given to Facebook despite “theft” claim

ICANN says registrar contract trumps national court. Registrar warns of legal consequences.
The typo domain name facebok.com has finally been returned to Facebook, over eight months after it was subject to a successful cyberquatting complaint.
The domain does not currently resolve, but Whois records show it was transferred to Facebook from its previous registrant, one “Franz Bauer”, last Thursday.
The case was marked by controversy, after ICANN threatened to shut down its sponsoring registrar, EuroDNS, for failing to transfer the domain last within 10 days, as required by UDRP rules.
EuroDNS had resisted the transfer after being named in a lawsuit, in its native Luxembourg, filed by a suspicious Panama shell company going by the name Facebok.com. The plaintiff claimed the domain had been “stolen” by Bauer.
But ICANN told the registrar last week that the Registrar Accreditation Agreement only allows the registrar to defer a transfer if the original registrant – not a third party – sues.
In a letter noting that EuroDNS is “a long-standing and respected member of the ICANN community”, the ICANN compliance department said:

the only kind of documentation that will stop the registrar from implementing a panel decision ordering a transfer is evidence that the registrant/respondent has commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under UDRP Rules. The mere filing of a complaint by a third party does not excuse the registrar from fulfilling its obligations under the policy.
…
in recognition that there has been a court filing, ICANN must reiterate that failing to comply with the relevant contractual provisions of the RAA subjects EuroDNS to escalated compliance action up to and including termination of the EuroDNS accreditation.

That seems to have been sufficient clarity for EuroDNS to push through the transfer, but the registrar is not happy about the situation, which may leave it in a tricky legal position in Luxembourg.
In a reply to ICANN, EuroDNS CEO Xavier Buck suggested that the story may not be over yet:

the action you demand from EuroDNS will have tremendous consequences for our company in the pending judiciary case.
Consequently, EuroDNS reserves all rights to seek indemnification from ICANN for any damages or loss caused by the action we have been forced to take not to lose our Registrar accreditation.

The lawsuit was filed last September, just days after the UDRP case was decided, but has not yet gone to court.
Under its previous ownership, facebok.com redirected to a series of scam sites that may have proved rather lucrative.

4 Comments Tagged: eurodns, facebok.com, facebook, ICANN, raa, udrp

GAC calls for $44,000 new TLDs

ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee has asked for the price of top-level domains to be reduced from $185,000 to $44,000 for applicants from developing nations.
The call came in GAC advice released yesterday, just a few days before ICANN plans to publish the seventh and potentially final version of new gTLD program’s Applicant Guidebook.
The document (pdf) shows that ICANN’s board and the GAC have made substantial progress towards resolving their differences, but that several outstanding issues remain.
Support for developing nations has arguably become the biggest hurdle to be leaped before the program can launch, as I reported earlier in the week.
The GAC has now asked ICANN’s board of directors to implement a support program for developing nation applicants “as a matter of urgency”.
There’s an unstated concern that a Guidebook that appears to unfairly favor applicants from rich countries may be rolled up and used as a cosh, by certain countries, to bash ICANN’s international legitimacy.
Specifically, the GAC wants cheaper fees for poorer applicants:

For support to developing countries, the GAC is asking for a fee waiver, which corresponds to 76 percent of the US$ 185,000 application fee requirement. Further, there will be instances where additional costs will be required: for example, for auction, objections, and extended evaluation. In such events, the GAC proposes fee reduction and waivers in these processes/instances where additional costs are required. The GAC would further like to propose an additional waiver of the annual US$ 25,000 fee during the first 3 years of operation.

The 76% reduction, which is in line with suggestions made by ICANN’s applicant support working group (JAS), would see fees of $44,400 for qualified applications, a $140,600 discount.
The call for auction fees to be lowered appears, on the face of it, bizarre. Presumably it refers to fees paid to the auction house, rather than the bids themselves.
Either way, it appears that developing nation applicants could get a distinct advantage in cases of contested strings, if the GAC advice is followed.
The GAC acknowledged ICANN’s worry that gaming – bogus proxy applicants springing up in qualifying nations, for example – could prove problematic, and writes:

On gaming, the GAC welcomes the JAS WG’s recommendation to set up a parallel process to determine eligibility based on the guidelines they have provided. The GAC proposes that a review team be established consisting of ICANN stakeholders experienced and knowledgeable in gTLD processes, developing country needs and gaming patterns. Furthermore, consideration should be given to the imposition of penalties on entities found to be attempting to game processes put in place to support developing country applicants.

The idea of an applicant support initiative being developed in parallel with the Applicant Guidebook – so as to not delay its approval – was first proposed by the JAS back in November.
But even the JAS envisaged that the details of the program would have to be squared away before the first round of new TLD applications are accepted.
Even if the Guidebook can be approved in the absence of a finalized support program, I think ICANN could have a hard time launching its four-month international outreach campaign until it is able to answer the basic question: “How much is this going to cost me?”
While the applicant support issue may not be a deal-breaker when it comes to approving the Guidebook – currently penciled in for June 20 – it could still delay the opening of the application window.
We’ll have a clearer picture if and when ICANN publishes the next version of the Guidebook, expected Monday, May 30 (late Pacific time, I expect).

6 Comments Tagged: applicant support, gac, ICANN, jas, new TLDs

Could VeriSign be banned from new TLDs?

Governments have proposed stricter background checks on new top-level domain operators that could capture some of the industry’s biggest players.
Top-five registrar Network Solutions and .com manager VeriSign may have reason to be concerned by the latest batch of Governmental Advisory Committee recommendations.
The GAC wants checks on new gTLD applicants expanded to include not only criminal convictions and intellectual property violations but also government orders related to consumer fraud.
The GAC advised ICANN, with my emphasis:

The GAC believes that the categories of law violations that will be considered in the background screening process must be broadened to include court or administrative orders for consumer protection law violations. If an applicant has been subject to a civil court or administrative order for defrauding consumers, it should not be permitted to operate a new gTLD.

This is not new – the GAC has proposed similar provisions before – but it seems to be the only GAC advice on applicant screening that ICANN has not yet adopted, and the GAC is still pushing for it.
Why could VeriSign and NetSol be worried by this?
One reason that springs to mind is that, back in 2003, NetSol was officially barred by the US Federal Trade Commission from the practice known as “domain slamming”.
Domain slamming, you may recall, was one of the dirtiest “marketing” tactics employed by the registrar sector during the early days of competition.
Registrars would send fake invoices with titles such as “Renewal and Transfer Notice” to the addresses of their rivals’ customers, mined from Whois data.
The letters were basically tricks designed to persuade customers ignorant of the domain name lifecycle to transfer their business to the slamming registrar.
Respectable registrars have nothing to do with such practices nowadays, but a decade ago companies including NetSol and Register.com, the two largest registrars at the time, were all over it.
At the time NetSol was carrying out its slamming campaign, it was part of VeriSign. It was spun off into a separate company earlier in 2003, before the FTC entered its order.
The order (pdf) was approved by a DC judge as part of a deal that settled an FTC civil lawsuit, alleging deceptive practices, against the company.
NetSol was not fined and did not admit liability, but it did agree to be permanently enjoined from any further slamming, and had to file compliance notices for some time afterward.
It seems plausible that this could fall into the definition of a “civil court or administrative order for defrauding consumers” that the GAC wants added to the Applicant Guidebook’s background checks.
Whether the GAC’s advice, if implemented by ICANN, would capture NetSol and/or VeriSign is of course a matter of pure speculation at the moment.
I think it’s highly unlikely that ICANN would put something in the Guidebook that banned VeriSign, its single largest source of funding (over a quarter of its revenue) from the new gTLD program.
Sadly, I think I may also be unfairly singling out these two firms here – I’d be surprised if they’re the only companies in the domain name industry with this kind of black mark against their names.
Existing background checks in the Applicant Guidebook governing cybersquatting are already thought to pose potential problems for registrars including eNom and Go Daddy.
UPDATE: It looks like NSI and VeriSign are probably safe.

3 Comments Tagged: gac, ICANN, network solutions, new TLDs, slamming, verisign

Experts say piracy law will break the internet

Five of the world’s leading DNS experts have come together to draft a report slamming America’s proposed PROTECT IP Act, comparing it to the Great Firewall of China.
In a technical analysis of the bill’s provisions, the authors conclude that it threatens to weaken the security and stability of the internet, putting it at risk of fragmentation.
The bill (pdf), proposed by Senator Leahy, would force DNS server operators, such as ISPs, to intercept and redirect traffic destined for domains identified as hosting pirated content.
The new paper (pdf) says this behavior is easily circumvented, incompatible with DNS security, and would cause more problems than it solves.
The paper was written by: Steve Crocker, Shinkuro; David Dagon, Georgia Tech; Dan Kaminsky, DKH; Danny McPherson, Verisign and Paul Vixie of the Internet Systems Consortium.
These are some of the brightest guys in the DNS business. Three sit on ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee and Crocker is vice-chairman of ICANN’s board of directors.
One of their major concerns is that PROTECT IP’s filtering would be “fundamentally incompatible” with DNSSEC, the new security protocol that has been strongly embraced by the US government.
The authors note that any attempts to redirect domains at the DNS level would be interpreted as precisely the kind of man-in-the-middle attack that DNSSEC was designed to prevent.
They also point out that working around these filters would be easy – changing user DNS server settings to an overseas provider would be a trivial matter.

PROTECT IP’s DNS filtering will be evaded through trivial and often automated changes through easily accessible and installed software plugins. Given this strong potential for evasion, the long-term benefits of using mandated DNS filtering to combat infringement seem modest at best.

If bootleggers start using dodgy DNS servers in order to find file-sharing sites, they put themselves at risk of other types of criminal activity, the paper warns.
If piracy sites start running their own DNS boxes and end users start subscribing to them, what’s to stop them pharming users by capturing their bank or Paypal traffic, for example?
The paper also expresses concern that a US move to legitimize filtering could cause other nations to follow suit, fragmenting the mostly universal internet.

If the Internet moves towards a world in which every country is picking and choosing which domains to resolve and which to filter, the ability of American technology innovators to offer products and services around the world will decrease.

This, incidentally, is pretty much the same argument used to push for the rejection of the .xxx top-level domain (which Crocker voted for).

6 Comments Tagged: DNSSEC, ICANN, protect ip

Cialis maker files UDRP on over 200 domains

Eli Lilly seems to have filed a single UDRP complaint covering 209 domain names that all contain its Cialis trademark.
The contested domains include duffers such as bestcialisinfoguide.com, cialisblogfeed.net and affordablecialistips.com.
Based on a sample, they all appear to be affiliate splogs pimping pills for the Belize-based mail-order pharmacies Pharm4All and Generics4All.
They all appear to have been registered in September 2010 by the same Moscow-based registrant.
While such large cases are not unheard of, they still constitute a material chunk of the annual UDRP workload. WIPO, for example, processed 4,370 domains last year.
This particular complaint was filed with the National Arbitration Forum, which has not yet disclosed the complainant. It’s pretty obviously Lilly, or the biggest chancer on the planet.
Lilly is a fairly strict enforcer of its trademarks. Its number of UDRP complaints to date is around the 100 mark, and most of those related to the Cialis brand.
The company is also one of those pushing most heavily for greater law enforcement take-down powers over “fake pharma” domain names.

3 Comments Tagged: cialis, eli lilly, pharma, udrp

Can ICANN make a trademark deal with the GAC?

The ICANN board and its Governmental Advisory Committee have yet to reach agreement on how to protect trademarks in new top-level domains, following their Friday teleconference.
The two parties are still stuck on at least four trademark protect issues, according to sources familiar with the talks, and the GAC is due to provide updated written advice to ICANN tomorrow.
Two of the areas still outstanding were previously marked “1A” in ICANN documents, meaning ICANN’s board believed the GAC’s concerns had already been resolved.
Trademark Claims
Details of the proposed Trademark Clearinghouse database and the related Trademark Claims service are still the subject of debate.
Trademark Claims provides an alert to a trademark holder if somebody tries to register their trademark in a new gTLD. The would-be registrant also gets a warning that they may be infringing rights.
As the Applicant Guidebook stands today, new gTLD managers will have to operate the service for the first 60 days of general availability, but the IP lobby and the GAC believe it should be permanent.
The sticking point for ICANN, as I understand it, is that there’s already a commercial market for brand protection services that have some overlap with Trademark Claims.
Several companies, such as MarkMonitor, CSC and Melbourne IT, offer services that alert customers when somebody appears to infringe their brand in a domain name.
If Trademark Claims ever made it into com and other gTLDs, it could effectively monopolize the brand watch services market. The Clearinghouse(s) will be ICANN contractors, after all.
Remember what happened when VeriSign announced its Wait List Service, which promised to effectively take over the existing domain back-order services market? It wasn’t pleasant.
Proof of Use
ICANN has already dropped its requirement for “substantive review”, but it still requires trademark holders to provide “proof of use” before they can add their marks to the Clearinghouse.
Without proof of use, companies will not be able to file Uniform Rapid Suspension complaints or defensively register their brands during new gTLD Sunrise periods.
The IP lobby and the GAC want this requirement scrapped. Any trademark of national effect should be enforceable using these rights protections mechanisms, they say.
One of the justifications is that some trademarks are obtained before the owner actually launches the product or service they pertain to.
If ICANN were to make these changes, there’s a good chance that bulk-registering bogus trademarks in loose jurisdictions may become an effective strategy for gaming the second level in new TLDs.
This has happened before, such as in .eu, and that wasn’t pleasant either.
Brand+Keyword
The current draft of the Applicant Guidebook only allows exact trademark matches into the Trademark Claims and Sunrise mechanisms.
But the the IP crowd (and, again, the GAC) thinks non-exact matches should be allowed in. In the .com space, the majority of cybersquatting nowadays is of course either a brand+keyword or a typo.
Millions are being needlessly spent on UDRP complaints over typos and brand+keyword domains, and the trademark lobby don’t want to risk having to spend even more.
But there could be implementation problems. Both types of variant could throw up lots of false positives during the Claims service, for example, creating conflicts where there aren’t any.
An automated system designed to scare off typosquatters could catch the generic domain goggles.tld as an infringement of Google’s trademark, to use an obvious example.
If brand+keyword Sunrise claims were allowed, holders of trademarks in generic terms could find themselves with a lucrative payday.
Any company that has a trademark on words such as “free”, “live”, “sexy” or anything that could act as a cool prefix, could have a field day during a Sunrise period.
Uniform Rapid Suspension
I understand a sticking point here continues to be the burden of proof required to make a URS case stick.
It’s currently “clear and convincing evidence”, but the IP lobby and the GAC want it reduced to “preponderance of evidence”, a lower burden.
To non-lawyers, the difference may seem trivial. Both standards are used in civil cases in many countries, but one’s a bit strong than the other.
“Preponderance of evidence” basically means “more likely true than not”, whereas “clear and convincing”… well, it’s a bit stronger than that.
The choice of burdens will have repercussions for years to come. Registrants in new gTLDs will know what they’re getting into, but if URS ever makes it into .com…
The Road to Singapore
It’s less than a month before ICANN’s next major meeting, and only a week until it plans to publish the next version of the Applicant Guidebook.
The ICANN board is due to meet face-to-face (and presumably in public) with the GAC on the first day of the meeting, June 19, but it seems that talks will be ongoing behind the scenes until then.
A great deal of progress has been made, but with complex issues still apparently unsettled (and there are more unresolved issues unrelated to trademarks) it’s little wonder that some are now wondering whether ICANN is as confident as it once was that June 20 is Guidebook Approval Day.

9 Comments Tagged: cybersquatting, gac, ICANN, new TLDs

Interpol wants to join the GAC

Interpol plans to apply to join ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee as an observer, according to ICANN.
The news came in a press release this evening, detailing a meeting between ICANN president Rod Beckstrom and Interpol secretary general Ronald Noble.
The meeting “focused on Internet security governance and enhancing common means for preventing and addressing Internet crime”. Beckstrom said in the release:

We seek the active engagement of law enforcement in our multi-stakeholder community where all parties are welcome. We recognize Interpol as an important international leader in this field. We are very pleased by its expression of interest in joining the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee as an observer.

The GAC already has about 20 members with “observer” status, which can be granted to any intergovernmental or treaty organization.
Also in attendance at the meeting in Lyons, France, was ICANN’s new chief of security, Jeff Moss, VP of government affairs Jamie Hedlund, and Alice Jansen of its Organizational Reviews unit.
Law enforcement has been trying to get a louder voice at ICANN for some time, and calls have grown in volume given the increasing use of domain names as tools to shut down crooks.
At ICANN’s recent meeting in San Francisco, Interpol’s top cop on the child abuse imagery beat, Michael Moran, launched a withering critique of what he saw as the industry’s failure to help police the web.
Moran called for a system to be put in place for law enforcement to more easily be able to shut down peddlers of such content and more easily track the abusers.

Comment Tagged: crime, gac, ICANN, interpol

A UDRP decision to scare the pants off domainers

Is this the most blatant case of UDRP abuse you’ve seen?
A company has won a generic domain name using a trademark it has had registered for less than a year, despite the fact that the current registrant has owned it for well over a decade.
The domain medicalexpo.com was first registered in 1997. It has been in the control of the same registrant since at least 2000, according to historical Whois records, but has never resolved to a web site.
The complainant, Benoit Thiercelin, who has has a history of attempted reverse domain name hijacking, was granted a European trademark on the term “Medical Expo” in June 2010.
In April 2011, Thiercelin filed a UDRP complaint with the little-used ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court, citing its European trademark and a US trademark as proof of its rights.
The US trademark was not fully “registered” until May 3, 2011, a month after the UDRP was filed, according to USPTO records.
On May 15, CAC ruled in his favor and awarded him the domain.
The panelist, Joseph Cannataci, found that the domain was registered “or at least re-registered” in bad faith, simply on the grounds that it had never been used.

If one is in good faith when registering a domain name, then the intention is understandably to use it for the purposes of one’s business or activity. If it remains unused for an unreasonable length of time then such registration is open to accusation of constituting “passive holding”. Irrespective of whether the domain name was registered before or after some of the Complainant’s marks, the current holder of the domain name does not seem to have used it or currently be using it.

The decision goes on to refer to the domain as a “TLD”.
The registrant did not help his cause by not responding to the complaint.
But it beggars belief that a UDRP panelist could infer bad faith registration of a generic domain that was registered 13 years before the complainant first acquired a trademark.
The idea that “re-registration” – presumably the panelist means the domain was renewed at some point after the trademark rights were acquired – could show bad faith does not even hold water.
The domain has been due to expire in 2012 since at least 2008, historical Whois records show. The registrant clearly bought a multi-year registration at some point before then, likely in 2002.
The complainant did not form his Medical Expo company until 2009, and did not file for his trademarks until December 2009 and February 2010. The registrant has not renewed the domain since then.
What we have here is a generic domain name, registered for 14 years, seized by complainant with only recently acquired rights, based on non-use and a flimsy piece of panelist reasoning.
Under other circumstances, it would be a slam-dunk case of reverse domain name hijacking.
In fact, Thiercelin has form when it comes to domain hijacking.
Last year, WIPO ruled that that he had attempted to use UDRP to hijack VirtualExpo.com, which also had been registered 10 years before he acquired his trademark rights.
The case was virtually identical to the MedicalExpo.com case, but the panelist ruled in exactly the opposite way, saying:

In the view of the Panel this is a Complaint which should never have been launched. The Complainant knew that the Domain Name was registered nearly 10 years before the Complainant acquired his registered rights, no attempt was made to demonstrate the existence of any earlier rights nor was any attempt made to address the issue arising from the disparity in dates. It simply was not mentioned. Instead, a flagrantly insupportable claim was made as to the Respondent’s bad faith intent at time of registration of the Domain Name and the Panel can only assume that it was hoped that the Panel would miss the point.

Can anybody say “forum shopping”?
This should be enough to scare the pants off of any domainer.

25 Comments Tagged: czech arbitration court, medicalexpo.com, udrp, virtualexpo.com