In article <1139877202.395946.241550@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
WIPO Sucks <br54990@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> WIPO Arbitration
> Bad Politics
>
> If you are concerned with decisions made by WIPO you may want to read
> of a case in the United States Court System, and then misquoted by WIPO
> for one of their cases - and WIPO won't even fix their own errors . . .
>
> My question is; "How many other decisions by WIPO have intellectual
> property right errors that benefit the mighty and are unfair to the
> weaker nations?"
>
> Please read the WIPO response to email on factual errors . . .
What specifically are you stating is the error -- and the basis for the
error?
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> UDRP decision once notified cannot be changed.
>
> To conduct specific research concerning UDRP decisions published on our
> website, please go to http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/search/index.html
> and type under "Full Text Search" any key word you want.
>
> Sincerely,
> Annick Regard
> WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------
>
> ***NEW*** The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Plans to Hold the
> Following Events:
> - WIPO Workshop for Mediators in Intellectual Property Disputes,
> Geneva, June 15 and 16, 2006
> - WIPO Advanced Workshop for Mediators in Intellectual Property
> Disputes, Geneva, June 19 and 20, 2006
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/events/workshops/2006/mediation/index.html
>
> The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is an international provider
> of non-profit services for the out-of-court resolution of commercial
> disputes. The Center specializes in cases arising out of technology and
> intellectual property transactions, such as licensing, R&D and
> distribution agreements.
>
> WIPO arbitration and mediation contract clauses:
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/arbitration/contract-clauses
> WIPO Internet domain name dispute resolution:
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains
>
> Greetings.
>
> Please forward to the proper department as your contact form on
> wipo.int is
> not functioning properly.
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------
>
> The WIPO decision found at
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/word/2003/d2003-0369.doc
has
> a problem with one of the references.
>
> The statement in paragraph 6 "...in bad faith..." can not be accurate
> as the final decision from the United States federal judge states the
> following:
>
> [quote]
>
> Opinion and Order - United States Trademark Law
>
>
> FILED
> 2001 April 16
>
> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
>
> CV 99-1290-MA
> OPINION AND ORDER
>
> ZIPEE CORP., a Wa****ngton cor****ation, and ZIPEE.COM, INC., an Oregon
> cor****ation,
>
> Plaintiffs,
>
> v.
>
> UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
>
> Defendant.
>
> Kristine Olson
> United States Attorney
> District of Oregon
> William W. Youngman
> Assistant United States Attorney
> 1000 S.W. Third Ave., Suite 600
> ****tland, OR 97204-2902
>
> Patricia K. Norris
> Keith Beauchamp
> Jennifer Van Kirk
> Lewis and Roca LLP
> 40 North Central Ave.
> Phoenix, AZ 85004
>
> Attorneys for Defendant
>
>
> MARSH, Judge.
>
> Plaintiffs originally filed this action seeking declaratory and
> injunctive relief; defendant filed an answer asserting counterclaims
> for federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
> 1114, unfair competiton under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a),
> federal and state statutory dilution, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) and Wash. Rev.
> Code 19.77.160 and common law trade name infringement and unfair
> competition. On December 12, 2000, I granted defendant's motion for
> summary judgment on the issues of infringement and cybersquatting and
> denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. Thereafter,
> defendant requested dismissal of its remaining counter-claims. On
> January 29, 2001, I entered a judgment permanently enjoining plaintiffs
> and any of their associates from using the postal services' marks and I
> awarded defendant its taxable costs. After entry of judgment, I granted
> plaintiffs' attorneys' motion to withdraw. There has been no
> substitution of counsel for plaintiffs.
>
> Defendant now moves for attorney fees and non-taxable costs totaling
> $1,183,403.22 under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1117(a). Plaintiffs have
> filed no opposition. The Lanham Act provides that a court may award
> reasonable attorney fees in "exceptional cases." Although the Act fails
> to define what constitutes an "exceptional" case, the Ninth Circuit has
> held that a trademark case is exceptional if the infringement is
> "malicious, fraudulent, deliberate or willful." Gracie v. Gracie, 217
> F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). Awards are "never automatic." Rolex
> Watch, USA, Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704, 711 (9th Cir. 1999).
>
> The secision to award fees rests within the sound discretion of the
> trial judge. Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1068. A finding of willful
> infringement will sup****t a fee award. See Id. Fees may be denied where
> the legality of the activity is "unsettled," see e.g. Securacomm
> Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom, Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 279 (3rd Cir. 2000),
> or where the claims are "not unfounded" or brought for purposes of
> harassment. See e.g. National Ass'n of Professional Baseball Leagues,
> Inc. v. Very Minor Leagues, Inc., 223 F.3d 1143, 1149-50 (10th Cir.
> 2000).
>
> The prevailing party bears the burden of demonstrating the exceptional
> nature of the case by "clear and convincing evidence." Seven-Up Co. v.
> Coca-Cola Co., 86 F.3d 1379, 1390 (5th Cir. 1996); Leatherman Tool
> Group, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 1998 WL 349554, 47 U.S.P.Q. 2d
> 1049, 1050 (D. Or. 1998).
>
> Defendant contends that it is entitled to fees because plaintiffs'
> infringement was willful and based upon evidence relied upon in sup****t
> of the cybersquatting counterclaim relative to plaintiffs' registration
> of other internet domain names that are confusingly similar to other
> businesses.
>
> While I found infringement and cybersquatting established in this case,
> there was a genuine, good faith dispute as to whether or not the term
> "postal service," was entitled to trademark protection at all.
> Defendant has no registration for the phrase "postal service," but
> instead relied upon related registrations for U.S. Postal Service
> marks. Whether "postal service" was generic and unprotectable or
> descriptive and protectable because it had acquired secondary meaning
> was not a groundless or unreasonable issue. I find that the plaintiffs'
> internet domain name registration for http://postal-service.com
and
> related marks presented a question of unsettled legality. Thus, I
> cannot say that this represents and "exceptional" case to justify a fee
> award.
>
> Based upon the foregoing, I decline to exercise my discretion to award
> attorney fees
> in this action. Accordingly, defendant's motion for fees (#150) is
> DENIED.
>
> IT IS SO ORDERED.
>
> DATED this 13 day of April, 2001.
>
> Signed
> Malcolm F. Marsh
> United States District Judge
>
> [unquote]
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please let me know if changes have been made to the WIPO do***ents
> and/or any decision relating to Zipee Corp vs USPS.
>
> Thanks.
>
> HS
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> WIPO Arbitration
> Bad Politics
>
|
