Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play

[Scott Gifford <sgifford () tir com>]

William Allen Simpson <wsimpson () greendragon com> writes:

> Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> > > ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
> >
> > Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently
> > reverse-hijack domains 
>
> Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation.  So, I spent the 
> better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions.  
> Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.  
>
> Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?

Assuming that I'm correctly understanding what is meant by
"reverse-hijacked", the most notorious case I'm aware of is
"walmartsucks.com".  This domain was taken from an owner serving up
criticism of Wal-Mart, and given to Wal-Mart.  Wal-Mart apparently
claimed that this domain name was so similar to their actual
trademark, customers could be confused into visiting the wrong site,
and ICANN somehow agreed.

I don't know where the official ICANN ruling is on this, but I recall
seeing it discussed in a number of places at the time.  Let me know if
you can't find a reference, and I'll see if I can dig one up.

-----ScottG.