Quote:
|
I'm not why you are directing so much anger towards me.
|
I'm not at all angry. You had suggested I was engaging in some sort of defamation by observing the process is a joke.
Yes, in the one or two days in which a respondent has an opportunity to say something, they will certainly try to throw something together in a hurry. The point remains that the INDRP has no rules - no provisions at all - which provide a respondent a meaningful opportunity to respond.
This is a deliberate feature of the INDRP. As I noted above, the structure of the INDRP rules was taken from the UDRP rules. The subject matter and many of the substantive provisions follow the same order, and the section headers are identical - with one glaring deliberate omission - i.e. any rules relating to a response.
Quote:
|
Looking at the rig.in case, I'm not sure where the arbitrator came to the conclusion of a legitimate claim. In some ways it seems as though they are trying to provide protection to domain owners (the owner of rig.co.in against someone registering a confusingly similar rig.in name), but it certainly seems like a very large leap of logic considering the circumstances.
|
Yes, and it would have been nice to actually see the decision. Neither NIXI nor the panelist actually sent a copy to the respondent until a month after the decision was made. The idea that someone would actually respond, and continue to be a participant in the proceeding, is apparently something of a novelty to them.
Quote:
|
it seems as though they are trying to provide protection to domain owners (the owner of rig.co.in against someone registering a confusingly similar rig.in name
|
Yes... quite some valuable site there at rig.co.in - a parking page showing results primarily relating to drilling. What a surprise that the respondent in rig.in is a geographer who provides software to petroleum geologists among other things. Yeah, I can see the clothing trademark infringement written all over that.