Here is our semi-annual report of those panelists who have Denied more Complaints than the others. Our analysis consists of 3 lists that we have compiled for your use. The first list is the TOP 10 Panelists for the past 6 months. The second list is the TOP Panelists who have found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against the complainants. The third list is the TOP 10 ALL TIME PANELISTS at WIPO.
WIPO TOP 10 PANELISTS FOR THE LAST 6 MONTHS
10. LUCA BARBERO – 3 decisions
9. ANDREW LOTHIAN – 3 decisions
8. NICHOLAS SMITH – 3 decisions
7. DIANE CABELL – 3 decisions
6. W. SCOTT BLACKMER – 3 decisions
5. MICHAEL ALBERT – 3 decisions – 1 RDNH
4 TIE – CHRISTOPHER GIBSON & FREDERICK ABBOTT – 4 decisions
3. ANDREW CHRISTIE – 5 decisions – 1 RDNH
2. TONY WILLOUGHBY – 5 decisions – 1 RDNH
1. MICHAEL SPENCE – 5 decisions
TOP PANELISTS WHO HAVE FOUND REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING
2 RDNH DECISIONS
MICHAEL ALBERT
TONY WILLOUGHBY
HON. NEIL BROWN
1 RDNH DECISION
RICHARD LYON
ANDREW CHRISTIE
FREDERICK ABBOTT
CHRISTOPHER GIBSON
DENNIS FOSTER
TOP 10 ALL-TIME WIPO PANELISTS
1. TONY SILLOUGHBY – 35 decisions
2. HON. NEIL BROWN – 34 decisions
3. RICHARD LYON – 25 decisions
4. ALISTAIR PAYNE – 24 decisions
5. BRIGITTE JOPPICH – 19 decisions
6. FREDERICK ABBOTT – 18 decisions
7. JOHN SWINSON – 18 decidions
8. WILLIAM TOWNS = 17 decisions
9. ROBERT BADGELY – 17 decisions
10. WARWICK ROTHNIE – 16 decisions
If you wish to obtain information on any of the other Panelists, send us an email at Howard@neuLaw.com.
Thanks for “listening” and watch for our list of NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM Panelists coming soon.
Howard
The Neu Facebook
Incomplete information are worse than no information. It would be more useful and interesting to see a ration of decisions. For example – MICHAEL SPENCE – 5 decisions for Respondents, but how many for Complainant..? What is his ratio..?
The number of decisions for complainant would have very little meaning as a very high percentage of those decisions are due to the Respondent not contesting the UDRP. All the Complainant has to do is to make out a Prima faciecase and the burden shifts to the Respondent.