9,082
edits
Changes
→Allegations of Unfair Decisions
==Allegations of Unfair Decisions==
==Allegations of Unfair Decisions==
On February 2012, ICA requested ICANN to investigate NAF's arbitration practices on two cases, Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman and Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Nokta Internet Technologies. ICA alleged that the decisions rendered by NAG panelists on these two cases were dubious.<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]A</ref>
In the case of Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman, ICA cited that the panelist failed to examine the trademark filing of the complainant with the USPTO wherein each registered trademark was accompanied with the statement: ''“NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "HARDWARE RESOURCES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN,”'' which proves that it has no rights to the generic term "hardware resources." NAF's decision to transfer the domain name hardwareresources.org of the defendant to the complainant is unfair. The NAF panelist ruled primarily on the basis that the defendant failed to respond to the complaint. ICA said that this case should have been dismissed by NAF and determined that the complainant filed the case in bad faith and identified it as an example of attempted act of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under Paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP Rules. <ref>[http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1423229.htm NAF Decision Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman]</ref>
ICA also claimed that the decision on the Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Nokta Internet Technologies case wherein the domain name autoownersinsurance.com was transferred to the complainant was questionable due to gross procedural unfairness. ICA pointed out that the complaint was originally three paragraphs in length. During the last hours of the proceedings, the complainant submitted a 191-page supplemental filing under the NAF Supplemental Rule 7, which is in conflict with ICANN's UDRP Policy. The panelist ruled in favor of the complainant without providing enough time for the respondent to answer the second filing- an entirely new complaint. ICAN pointed out that the proceedings of the case was fundamentally unfair.<ref>[http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1423229.htm NAF Decision Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman]</ref>
==References==
==References==