ED Magedson – Founder
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center34, chemin des Colombettes, CH-1211 Geneva 20, S Internet United States of America
I was involved in a Domain Dispute that was to be arbitrated by WIPO.
The more powerful corporate giant seemed to be given more than a benefit of the doubt.
In the case they applied "rules" which they made up that basically expanded a companies very limited trademark to include "domain names" and products not included under the protection of trade marks whether common law or not.
They seemed to miss the legal limits of the "generic" domain name that cannot be granted protection as it would create a monopoly where others in the market could not describe their products. The odd thing is the generic use I deployed the website for was not the same business the complainant was in. Namely tractors and tractor parts.
They also seemed to not be able to differentiate between industrial products and home gardening products. They seemed to cut every corner of the law using their "rules".
But this is not the center of my "rip off". I agreed to arbitration by this private body because I felt they would be fair and that no matter what the decided, the worst I could loose was a domain name.
In the dispute, the arbitrator concluded that by simply buying a domain, offering it for sale and being negligent in not searching the Internet for similar names, I had intent to do "bad faith" even though the name I chose was sufficiently generic as to avoid being protected by and trade mark when used generically.
WIPO Arbitration and
The "intentional" bad faith appeared to be "proven" in their eyes by the presence of automated links that GoDaddy bases loosely on my keyword "tractors, semi tractor, etc." that match the generic non-trade mark application of the domain name. They did not say this but if they don't know anything about Godaddy cash parking and they are working in domain disputes, they are under qualified to be arbitrating in this field, in my opinion. Thus I assume they knew, it was not my decision on which links appear on a dynamic day to day basis. I told them this.
Additionally they cited my disregard of not searching as "proof" of intent to do bad faith and lure customers with a trade mark. This, in my eyes, is comparable to saying a person who falls asleep with the stove had arsonist intent.
They never even inquired about my intent. Not one single question was presented to me about how the links appeared on the website or what keyword were entered in Godaddy's cash parking feature. It is a lie to say I had intent of "bad faith" trademark infringement and they can show no proof.
They certainly should be aware of how GoDaddy's cash parking works and investigated intent.
I made it clear that I lived in a country where the "trade mark" of the domain disputing party and the presence of this large department store does not exist and that I was unaware of their existence.
The rip off is that these "arbitrators" that are suppose to understand the law, publish libel with this carelessly false conclusion of "intent" and "bad faith" so that a search on my name by anyone on the web returns defaming and false information.
BTW, I do not recall GoDaddy ever placing a warning that the links they select when you enable Cash Parking might cause trade mark infringements.
The very large company that filed the dispute never approached me before the dispute nor informed me of claims of infringement. They had my contact information because they sent me a large package after they filed.
They simply hired lawyers to do the large filings, paid the sizable fees and then notified me after they initiated it. In part the large store are the catalyst for the situation that led to this alleged Libel I m claiming.
I would have settled without the Libel that is defaming me everyday on the web.
Additional information that may or may not be related:
Because I lived in a closed society at the time, which I was told will never accept me and suffering what I would call defaming and shunning daily, I found this Libel a great blow on top of the others issues which befell me at this same time.
In fact I was expanding this area of developing websites because oddly customer after customer didnt pay their invoices. I attribute this to the shunning.
With research I found that the partner of the arbitrator on this case was involved in posting to law sites in this closed society in their language. Although I can draw my own conclusions that the arbitration was not as professional as I would expect, I dont have the resources to investigate if the Arbitrator or his partner are consistently balanced in arbitration fairness or towards benefiting this closed society and shunning.
Regardless the Libel continues to appear in search results on many sites. They are an organization, not the legal system. I had no intent of "bad faith" and they had more than enough indication no such intent existed, never inquired more deeply the issue of intent and despite this they publish without my consent Libel over a domain name I spent approximately 10 dollars for. They may want to look like a legal system and publish their precedent, but that is not a green light for libel and terminology that is defamatory. I'm not sure what they are publishing is not just marketing an image of legitimacy because generic trade marks is a well known limitation true legal systems uphold. Thus the Libel looks to me like it is self serving hype. That above all is the rip off I see.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 12/28/2011 05:37 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/wipo-arbitration-and-mediation-center/internet/wipo-arbitration-and-mediation-center-world-intellectual-property-organization-organizati-815065. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.