actually .. I am positive that it can be proven that its IP theft in the case of the no name servers, not sure that the balance would have any rights given that in each of those cases the domain has expired. The udrp/wipo options are severely reduced on expired names. Some residual rights _may_ exist, but it may be muted. Damages may only be proven on renewal given that it reverts to original expiry date.
Some days I wish I'd completed my matchbook cover correspondance course in IP law :)) At 02:27 PM 09/15/2003 -0700, George Kirikos wrote: >Hello, > >--- Registrar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> How is it against the UDRP?.. What exactly are you going to WIPO? >> The name doesn't exist!! It's an IP attorneys wet dream at that >> layer. > >They're doing it also for domain names that DO EXIST (but have no >nameservers). See my post at: > >http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00317.html > >with the example of 0c.net (zero-C). Also, any name that's expired, >RGP, pending delete, etc. > >Sincerely, > >George Kirikos >http://www.kirikos.com/ > >
