Comments

• UDRPtalk (UDRPtalk) 06:10 pm 30-Jun-2009 Passive holding of an inactive generic name is NOT bad faith. What planet is the arbitrator, Carolyn Marks Johnson, from? Hasn’t she any common sense about the descriptive phrase “Mother’s Milk”? She should have known better; she’s handled several UDRP cases. Plus, it’s outrageous that the arbitrator allowed this case to be retried again considering that no new evidence appears to have been contributed between the cases. Responding to a UDRP is not a requirement in order to prevail, so therefore the arbitrator should confirm that new evidence is being submitted between trials especially since no response was presented. Obviously, that verification never occurred since the arbitrator did not make any mention of the past case or the lack of new evidence being contributed. This case appears to be a combination of “If at first you don’t succeed, then try try again” and “Use it or lose it” without any regard to genericness.