FC: "Sucks" domain name must be awarded to company, WIPO panel says

This is an amazingly awful decision. It says that because non-English
speakers might be confused by the "sucks" suffix on
VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM, the domain name must be turned over to the
company it criticizes:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1121.html
>the Panel has found that non-English speaking Internet users would be
>likely to attach no significance to the appended word 'sucks' and would
>therefore regard the disputed domain name as conveying an association with
>the Complainant

The WIPO panel goes so far as to insist that because the band Primus owns
the domain name primussucks.com (named after their 1990 album "Suck on
This"), prospective visitors to vivendi.com might get confused about who's who.

-Declan

---
From: "j d sallen" <jdsallen_at_ix.netcom.com>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan_at_well.com>
Subject: VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM UDRP decision
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:30:43 -0500
Yesterday I received the VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM UDRP decision which 
comes down in favor of pirating this domain name for the company (aka, 
ordering a transfer). Although, as its (for now) owner, it is my speech 
rights that are being squashed, I got a good laugh out of the decision. 
Have they no shame.
There is a darkly comic component to the VIVENDI decision. The decision of 
panelists Sir Ian Barker and Alan Limbury  (now a sporting a combined 
record of 72-10 in favor of complainants, when acting a single panelists) 
references the rock group Primus. Indeed, they go further with specific 
mention of Les Claypool, Primus's front-man. Are we supposed to believe 
that these two "learned" Englishmen are followers of, or familiar with, 
this particularly quirky rock band? In light of the fact that the 
complainants in this case are multi-national rock music moguls (who made no 
mention of Primus or any other group in their complaint, the only 
communication sanctioned by the UDRP rules), this is one citing that 
clearly fails the sniff test.
I recall reading a widely-published rebuttal of Michael Geists's study on 
UDRP decisions and process, by an IP lawyer I think, arguing that any 
Panelists whose decisions were consistently pro-complainant or betrayed an 
agenda would fast be weeded out. Panelists like Ian Barker are perfect 
cases in point showing the fallacy of that premise. Or perhaps Roberto 
Bianchi, whose record is a "perfect" 43-0, and counting, in favor of 
complainants (among these was the CORINTHIANS.COM ruling, as sole 
panelist). Such intellectually bankrupt decisions are even more problematic 
than they first appear because poor decisions serve as precedents that 
enable more and poorer rulings. The result is a UDRP system that has sent 
fairness into a death-spiral.
Warm regards,
J D Sallen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------