Subscribe
BritishMuseum.org WIPO Case, was it Valid?
Submit to Digg.com!
April 26th, 2007 by 
Jay Westerdal
George Kirikos points out that the WIPO case regarding British Museum.org was decided based on a default judgment because the respondent didn’t reply. All looks fair until one looks closer at the facts. They list the defendant as, “British Museum Resources, Limited, West Bay, George Town, Kentucky, United States of America”. One problem, the Defendant lives in KY the Country not KY the US State. I doubt due process was observed in this case if the notification went to the wrong address. This would make the ruling null and void.
Registrant Organization:British Museum Resources, Ltd.
Registrant Street1:P.O. Box 115
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:West Bay
Registrant State/Province:George Town
Registrant Postal Code:WB
Registrant Country:KY
WIPO should try the case again and revoke its current decision. I have sent a note to WIPO panelist Brigitte Joppich that decided the case. I will give an update on what she does.
« Newer Post Older Post »
Posted in Domain Dispute, WIPO |
9 Comments »
April 26th, 2007 at 11:46 am
However, even if the notification in hardcopy went to the wrong address (provided that the Respondent’s postal address as shown in the whois database was correct) the Respondent should have received the case related documents (at least the Complaint) by mail, too. Therefore it could have replied to the Complainant’s assertions, couldn’t he?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Thanks for picking up on the story, Jay. It’s very likely that the famous British Museum would win the case, even if the respondent filed a defence. I’m more worried about the general sloppiness.
Canada, for example, has an IANA country code of “CA” and there are millions of domain registrants in Canada. I wouldn’t want them to get confused and send complaints instead to the state of California, in the USA. Someone in Israel, with an IANA code of IL, might see a complaint directed to Illinois, USA by mistake. Someone in Indonesia, with an IANA code of ID, might see their complaint end up in Idaho, USA, and so on.
Registrants might be wise to always include a FAX number in their WHOIS, as section 2 of the UDRP rules requires sending the complaint to the fax number(s) if it is present. A fax is probably also easier to notice compared to emails, especially for those of us getting 1000+ junk emails daily.
Once WHOIS is reformed, it would be nice to be able to add multiple “legal contacts” in the WHOIS (perhaps only visible to the registrar), so that in the event of a UDRP or other timely legal matter, copies of complaints could be sent directly to one’s attorneys. Thus, if one doesn’t check email for 3 weeks, because one is on holidays or ill, one doesn’t lose a UDRP by default (required response time is 20 days for UDRPs, although some providers allow for extensions).
April 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I wonder if there are any domain owners that live in .INdiana …
April 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Yeah, I caught and blogged this one, too (http://www.ambler.net).
I’m very curious to see if you get any response out of WIPO on this. Do keep us updated!
April 26th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Did you really read the case paper?
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0142.html
It says:
“the due date for Response was extended until March 18, 2007 as per the request of the Respondent with the approval of the Complainants”
So they ware in correspondence with the Respondent (he wanted to extend the due date). But it the end he didn’t file a response.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
No response I guess.
UDRP is a joke.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Here you can find tons of great online flash games to play.
Remember to check back often because we are always adding new games.
Play Free Online Games http://www.baggygames.com