Comments

• smlevy42 06:23 am 16-Jul-2014 If you can't make it, fake it. UDRP panelists are bound to only consider the evidence before them since there’s no discovery or cross-examination in these proceedings. Here, the Panelist could very well have accepted the Respondent’s manufactured evidence saying “my hands are tied by the UDRP process.” However, due to his longstanding experience in these matters, he saw through the ruse and acknowledged both Complainant's counter-evidence and the fact that the Respondent, himself, back-pedaled to some degree. In the end, the Panelist correctly decided to weigh all the evidence rather than simply accept the Respondent’s posters at face value thus arriving at the right conclusion that Respondent is a cybersquatter who is trying very hard to be clever and game the UDRP system. His ownership of over 360 domains, many of which copy other well-known brands, further calls into question his credibility and the veracity of his submitted evidence.