Our eagle eye, George Kirikos has caught another National Arbitration Forum (NAF) John J. Upchurch cut and pasting in a UDRP decision
The decision involved the case, eyecandydigitalsignage.com but as you can see below the panelist cut and pasted language from another decision:
“””Complainant alleges that Respondent must have had constructive and/or actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the MEDIACOM mark prior to registration of the domain names. While constructive notice is generally regarded as insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, the Panel here concludes that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s mark and thus registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See BMC Software, Inc. v. Dominic Anschutz, FA 1340892 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2010) (determining that constructive notice will usually not support a finding of bad faith); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).””
The actual MEDIACOM mark is cited in a DIFFERENT UDRP in which the last paragraph there properly reads:
“Complainant alleges that Respondent must have had constructive and/or actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the MEDIACOM mark prior to registration of the domain names because of Complainant’s widespread use of the mark and its trademark registrations with the USPTO. While constructive notice is generally regarded as insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, the Panel here concludes that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s mark and thus registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Deep Foods, Inc. v. Jamruke, LLC, FA 648190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2006) (stating that while mere constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, where the circumstances indicate that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s mark when it registered the domain name, panels can find bad faith); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).”
So, the NAF panelist copied and pasted from another decision, changed a few things, but then forgot to change the first sentence. He really earned his fees!
“NAF/WIPO complain that they can’t do URS at $300-$500…..maybe hey protest too much, when their panelists are “phoning it in”, simply cutting/pasting, rather than making decisions from a blank piece of paper.”
John J. Upchurch, is one of NAF’s most commonly appointed panelists, see the Zak Muscovitch study at:
http://dnattorney.com/NAFdomainnamedisputestudy2012.shtml
You can see other reports on cut and paste UDRP decisions at:
http://domainnamewire.com/2010/04/23/seriously-wooot-the-hell
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100423_naf_copying_pasting_nonsense_into_udrp_decisions
http://www.elliotsblog.com/did-udrp-decision-get-revision-0485
http://www.circleid.com/posts/naf_caught_revising_past_udrp_decisions
BrianWick says
Further proof most UDRP opinions are worth nothing more than the $500 each panalist get paid
George Kirikos says
With ICANN providing no oversight of UDRP providers whatsoever, who is holding them accountable? An archive of the actual decision is at:
http://www.webcitation.org/6BJKDPY7C
by the way (in case NAF tries to revise the decision, as they’ve done in the past).
LM says
Rly this panellist should just resign quietly, I mean how can he possibly have any professional credibility ever again. Don’t the other panellists laugh at him at the UDRP panellist annual moron awards dinner or what?
If this was in any other field he’d be widely lampooned. His bosses surely must know that things like this will just get torn apart at any other than this court of marsupials.
In the meantime people with *genuine* cases of cybersquatting might be wise to avoid this UDRP service provider because really if they won with this guy on the panel they could be in a weaker position than when they started.
pscorwin says
More evidence that ICANN needs to establish and enforce standard contracts for UDRP providers — and to investigate repeated evidence of shoddy practices at NAF.
John Berryhill says
Has anyone figured out who, ultimately, owns the NAF? Maybe it’s for sale.
Domo Sapiens says
I got interested on reading more and it seems the accusation of bias goes back long ways…
the word “pandering” came up a few times…
wow
8000 udrp cases so far… ?
HELP.org says
Cutting and pasting from other decisions, in itself, is not a problem. People do it all the time in legal proceedings. There are enough issues with the UDRP without trying to make something of a non-issue.