If this seems too long to read, it's about a domain name registration dispute between RedHat and a volunteer who registered wemakefedora.org (RedHat was seeking to gain control over the domain).<p>The arbiter not only found against RedHat but also made a declaration that the dispute was brought in bad faith.<p>The condensed excerpt is:<p>"Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <wemakefedora.org> domain name both because Complainant consented to Respondent’s use of the domain name so long as the website followed Complainant’s trademark guidelines and because Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark."<p>and from the conclusion,<p>"In light of these circumstances the Panel finds that Complainant brought this proceeding despite having clear knowledge of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the proceeding was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder."
The respondent is quite the character…<p>He’s been expelled from the Debian project/community (source: <a href="https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117" rel="nofollow">https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117</a>) and he’s in pretty bad standing with Free Software Foundation Europe.
<i>Respondent is using the FEDORA mark in the domain name to identify Complainant for the purpose of operating a website that contains some criticism of Complainant. Such use is generally described as "fair use" of a trademark.</i><p>This is a good precedent, regardless of what you think of the respondent.
Comments on the LWN article are interesting: <a href="https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/" rel="nofollow">https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/</a>
This bit of [1], referred to in [2], seems relevant:<p>"their site owners, moderators, administrators, and users are required to comply with the Fedora Code of Conduct. Community sites and accounts which are unable to meet this standard of conduct will be required to cease use of the Fedora trademarks,"<p>I wasn't previously aware of it, but [3] may also be relevant. (I know no more than appeared on the devel list, other than history elsewhere.)<p>They may have cocked up the case, but a finding of bad faith against Red Hat seems unlikely to be fair, given the above.<p>1. <a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines?rd=Legal/TrademarkGuidelines" rel="nofollow">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines?rd...</a><p>2. <a href="https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/22OTDONAMUECMP4OIJK64QEAISJBKNHK/" rel="nofollow">https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fe...</a><p>3. <a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pocock" rel="nofollow">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pocock</a>
UDRP is not meant to say "you're the asshat, so I'm giving it to the one I like"<p>RedHat have good reasons to want the other chap pushed off the cliff, but thats not what UDRP is for. The asshat has a basis to want their platform, they used it to do what they want, and they have a basis to believe they applied for it, legitemately under terms of use of the name, which <i>met the rules</i><p>If you want to pull toys from an asshat, find the right rule in the rulebook to do it. This wasn't the right rule.
RedHat's parent IBM, has a rather interesting history when it comes to litigation assholery AIUI. The late Chuck Peddle described some of it in [0] IIRC.<p>Pocock has a reputation for being an antagonistic asshole, but if there's even a shred of IBM representation on RedHat's side I'm inclined to chuckle in a pot-meet-kettle fashion at this situation.<p>[0] <a href="https://theamphour.com/241-an-interview-with-chuck-peddle-charismatic-chipmaking-coryphaeus/" rel="nofollow">https://theamphour.com/241-an-interview-with-chuck-peddle-ch...</a>
Mr. Pocock is well known in the Debian community.<p><a href="https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117" rel="nofollow">https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117</a>
Incase anyone else was curious why this went to arbitration [0]:<p>"Disputes relating top-level domain name names may be settled outside of court under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. (UDRP) as adopted by ICANN. Arbitrator in such cases will be appointed by one of the ICANN approved dispute resolution providers.<p>Red Hat approached the US-based National Arbitration Forum on January 17, 2022. NAF released a document stating that Red Hat’s sole demand was for the transfer of the rights to wemakefedora.org. The reason is that the company’s trademark, the “Fedora”, has been used in the man’s name."<p>[0] <a href="https://bit.ly/3u9tnnP" rel="nofollow">https://bit.ly/3u9tnnP</a>
Pocock explains it here: <a href="https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-volunteers-and-fedora-foundations/" rel="nofollow">https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-vol...</a><p>almost like the shit show at the FSFE and Debian recently.
Respondent's public reaction on the decision[0].<p>0. <a href="https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-volunteers-and-fedora-foundations/" rel="nofollow">https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-vol...</a>
>>The domain name is not used in bad faith, given that the web site directs people back to the trademark owner's site, doesn't ask for money, doesn't run banner advertising, doesn't ask for personal registration. It has been demonstrated that the trademark owner is suppressing the blogs of some volunteers with authorship rights and Respondent’s site exists to give those voices an equal status. The founding documents published by the trademark owner (Exhibit 104) encourage us to give voice to all sides.<p>Fail to understand fedora's motives here other than censorship
TL;DR:<p><i>FINDINGS</i><p><i>Complainant [Red Hat] has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief and has brought the Complaint primarily to harass the domain-name holder [Daniel, who owns wemakefedora.org].</i><p>...<p><i>Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED and declares that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.</i><p><i>Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wemakefedora.org> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.</i>
If anyone wants a TLDR:<p>> DECISION
Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED and declares that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding<p>RH are markedly less nice than before IBM took over, which is a pity.
> FINDINGS<p>> Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief and has brought the Complaint primarily to harass the domain-name holder.