WIPO: Difference between revisions
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
* 27th November, 2008—Draft Advisory concerning Best Practices by Registrars<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann271108.pdf Draft Advisory concerning Best Practices by Registrars]</ref> | * 27th November, 2008—Draft Advisory concerning Best Practices by Registrars<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann271108.pdf Draft Advisory concerning Best Practices by Registrars]</ref> | ||
== | ==UDRP Cases== | ||
On January 10, 2012, Senior District Judge Royal Ferguson of the Northern District of Texas | On January 10, 2012, Senior District Judge Royal Ferguson of the Northern District of Texas issued his final ruling reversing the decisions of the WIPO under the UDRP on all cybesquatting cases filed by Receivers (original registrant of domain names) as early as 2010. Judge Ferguson ordered the domain names publicstorge.com, pulicstorage.com, puplicstorage.com and aplle.com; which had been transferred to the companies Public Storage and Apple respectively shall be transferred back to the Receivers. He also ordered the Australian based registrar Fabulous.com to disregard the default transfer ruling of the UDRP for all the remaining non-transferred domain names and to inform the court within two days that the court order has been fulfilled.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/01/12/wow-judge-orders-udrp-transfers-including-apple-typo-to-be-reversed/ Wow: Judge orders UDRP transfers, including Apple typo, to be reversed]</ref> | ||
Prior to the final court ruling, the Receivers filed a motion to enforce stay and asked the court to order ICANN to reverse the UDRP decisions regarding the transfer of its 22 domains names.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/01/10/receiver-apple-typ/ Receiver asks for typo domains to be confiscated from Apple and others]</ref> The court ordered ICANN to stay and abate the UDRP ruling. ICANN responded that it no authority to direct the UDRP to terminate its proceedings, only the WIPO has the power to do so. ICANN also argued that the court has no jurisdiction over it and requested to vacate its ruling granting the receivers motion to enforce stay. <ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2011/12/22/receiver-icann-thumbing-its-nose-at-the-court-asks-court-fo-find-icann-in-contempt/ Receiver: “ICANN thumbing its nose at the Court”, asks court to find ICANN in contempt]</ref> The court ruled that it has jurisdiction over ICANN and denied ICANN's motion to vacate the court's order. Furthermore, the court ordered ICANN to to stay and abate the proceedings and to file notice confirming that it has complied with the Order Granting the | |||
Receiver’s Emergency Motion to Stay."<ref>[http://bretbucket.s3.amazonaws.com/Order-ICANNStay.pdf http://bretbucket.s3.amazonaws.com/Order-ICANNStay.pdf]</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||