Comments

• UDRPtalk (UDRPtalk) 07:42 pm 22-Nov-2010 I'm surprised Carolyn Marks Johnson dissented in this case. It seems obvious these domains are perceived as "fair use" and/or "free speech".

• PaulKeating (Paul Keating) 06:19 am 23-Nov-2010 That this is a correctly decided UDRP is not what caught my eye. It is one of the few (if not the only) "sucks" case that limited the analysis to the 1st element without discussing any of the content on the website. Most of these cases seem to punt on the 1st element and focus on whether the page contained any revenue generating activities. In those instances where advertisements appear, panelists have transferred the domain. It was refreshing to see the panel limit their considerations to the 1st element as it keeps the focus where it should be - at the domain name level - regardless of the underlying use. Of course, I wonder if the result would have been the same had the respondent been a "domainer". As for the dissent, it does not surprise me all things considered. Paul Keating