Question: Do you think the decision to award CREW.COM to JCrew was the correct decision?

Nominee Replies

Donald Langenberg - posted on 2000-10-01 19:07:19 I have no idea. Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-09-15 11:20:27 The CREW.COM decision is a clear example of what is wrong with the domain name dispute resolution system at ICANN. J. Crew (who already owned jcrew.com) was able to take away crew.com from its legitimate owner. Most of us would consider crew a generic word. To allow J.Crew to take it, through ICANN's dispute process, seems ridiculous. It is my view that generic words should not be subject to ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). And there are other similar bad decisions. Take a look at the forced transfers of esquire.com, corinthians.com, walmartcanadasucks.com and barcelona.com. Each of these decisions rest on questionable reasoning, even under the terms of ICANN's UDRP. The arbitrators often look to whether the domain name registrant offered to sell the domain to a trademark holder. When a generic word is involved, this consideration should generally be irrelevant (or low-weight). Decisions like crew.com tend to undermine the credibility of ICANN's UDRP. That decision is ultimately bad for domain name owners and trademark owners alike. I have proposed reforms for this problem. (1) A more clear position in the UDRP about generic word domain names, and (2) a low cost internal review process at ICANN to bring conformity to the decisions of the various dispute resolution providers (WIPO, NAF, eResolution, etc.). Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-09-14 00:48:07 I have not studied the case enough to say, and I believe one can know only by studying the case. But whether I did or not, I don't think it is appropriate for a board member, or candidate, to criticize the results in a specific case. I have been critical of the dispute process, and I believe that is an appropriate issue to discuss. But I don't believe it is appropriate to second guess, for political gain, the results in specific cases. Lyman Chapin - posted on 2000-09-13 13:33:48 I agree with the dissenting arbitration panelist (G. Gervaise Davis) that the majority opinion prohibits conduct which was not intended to be regulated by the ICANN policy - namely, speculation in domain names, which the two other arbitration panelists held to be prima facie evidence of bad faith registration. Karl Auerbach - posted on 2000-09-11 13:31:42 There have been so many cases that I can't remember the details of that particular case. My recollection, however, is that that case was wrongly decided. (I have a hard time accepting any decision that awards a generic name, such as crew to a a trademark holder.) Let's distinguish two things: 1) That the UDRP itself is flawed. 2) That many of the UDRP decisions are flawed. See my comments about the UDRP itself at: http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/platform.htm#dnspol-udrp As for the particular cases themselves - many of the arbitrators seem to be imputing facts (such as the intent of the defendant/respondent) from their own imaginations rather than from actual evidence of actual events. And many of the arbitrators are treating domain names as if their only possible use were as product names on web pages -they fail to realize that the domain name system, and the internet in general, encompasses far more than the world wide web and is used for more than simply selling goods and services.