Anyone else could go for domains like thevalidas(dot)com, validasetc(dot)com and file with WIPO.

He basically is saying that what some of these recent decisions in which they ignored the UDRP rules and overlooked the “and” requirements of the UDRP to do what is ultimately right, irrespective of the rules.

How ridiculous. Now he’s are jumping on the the “feeling-based” UDRP decision making process.

I’d swear these guys are corrupt b/c they are trying to change the process to allow anything to pass. They have to be biased towards trademark interests or they would not think like this. Where is the consistency in these decisions? Where is the following regulations in accord with the UDRP process?

The part of this decision that worries me more than anything is that the Panelist seems to be alluding to a push to actually change the wording in the UDRP from “and” to “or”, which would completely rape the system even further…

“It remains to be seen whether the recent cases which have explored a reinterpretation of paragraph 4(b) to the effect that a finding that good faith registration may be turned “retroactively” into bad will be taken up generally by panels. Those recent attempts have clearly been motivated by a laudable desire to provide a remedy under the Policy and to do justice in the very small number of cases in which the rights of a trademark owner are being abused by the perceived bad faith use of an identical or confusingly similar domain name, in which the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests, but in which it seems that the domain name was registered by the respondent in good faith. To this extent, these decisions accord with the purpose of the Policy, namely to address the fundamental problem which is cybersquatting.

In the view of this Panel, the only permissible way for this to be achieved is for ICANN to amend the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) by changing “and” into “or”. Until then this Panel believes that (unsatisfying as it may be in its practical effect in the small number of cases in which it has been an issue) the view should prevail,… that “registration of a domain name that at inception did not breach [Policy] 4(a)(iii) but is found later to be used in bad faith does not fall foul of [Policy] 4(a)(iii)”. This Panelist concurs in this regard…

In the present case, as to paragraph 4(b)(i), because the disputed domain name was registered more than seven years before the first use in commerce of the Complainant’s trademark, this Panel does not accept the proposition that the Respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or to one of its competitors. Indeed, this circumstance and the absence of evidence in these proceedings that, at the time of registration, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s existence (although such possibility cannot be entirely excluded), lead to the conclusion here that the registration of the disputed domain name in 2000 was not in bad faith.

“In this Panel’s view, until the Policy is amended,…” <<THAT is what should scare you.

As much as this Respondent deserved to get his ass kicked, this panelist did the rare thing and actually followed the Policy instead of going completely off the reservation like some other rogue panelists have done to get around the purposeful and very meaningful "AND" language. Obviously though, the Panelists would very much like to see that changed to an "OR". Should that come to pass, prepare to be pillaged.