Forums
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Market
Domains/Websites Wanted
.com Domain Market
gTLD Domain Market
ccTLD Domain Market
Web3 Domain Market
Third-Level Domain Market
Adult Domain Market
What's New
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Account Upgrade
Premium Members Directory
Log in
Register
What's New
calendar
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.
Forums
Domain Discussion
Domain Industry Companies
Company guilty of reverse domain hijacking after refiling case
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andrew Allemann" data-source="post: 2258771"><p><strong>Domain owner forced to defend himself twice despite unchanged facts.</strong></p><p></p><p><img src="http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/grow-it-all.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />A company that sells an organic fertilizer has been <a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-0879" target="_blank">found guilty</a> of reverse domain name hijacking after filing a UDRP for the second time.</p><p></p><p>GBI Prosperities Pty Ltd. and Dr Grow It All Sales Pty Ltd. filed the UDRP against the owner of doctorgrowitall.com and drgrowitall.com. The domains are registered by a former business associate.</p><p></p><p>One of the complainant’s principals, Danny Hood, <a href="http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2013-0723" target="_blank">filed a UDRP</a> over DrGrowItAll.com in 2013. He represented himself, and the panelist in that case noted that Hood really phoned it in. The panelist said the complaint “barely” met the qualifications of a UDRP filing.</p><p></p><p>The complainants said there were a few reasons it should be able to refile the case. One is that the second domain was added. Another is that it wasn’t represented by counsel the first time and that its initial case was so poorly presented it should have been rejected as an invalid case. The third is that the complainants are different because the first time it was an individual and now it’s a company.</p><p></p><p>The facts of the case did not change between the two filings.</p><p></p><p>Panelist Warwick A. Rothnie noted that the respondent had to defend himself twice thanks to the refiled complaint, and found the complainant to have filed the dispute in bad faith.</p><p></p><p>This case might make for a new type of RDNH category at <a href="http://RDNH.com" target="_blank">RDNH.com</a> — refiling cases.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/category/podcasts/" target="_blank"><img src="http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/dnw-podcast-rss.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a></p><p>© DomainNameWire.com 2016. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) domainnamewire.com.</p><p></p><p><strong>Latest domain news at DNW.com:</strong> <a href="http://domainnamewire.com" target="_blank">Domain Name Wire</a>.</p><p></p><p>The post <a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2016/06/29/company-guilty-reverse-domain-hijacking-refiling-case/" target="_blank">Company guilty of reverse domain hijacking after refiling case</a> appeared first on <a href="http://domainnamewire.com" target="_blank">Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Views</a>.</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"><strong>Related posts:</strong></span></p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/10/mediawhiz-nailed-for-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/" target="_blank">MediaWhiz Nailed for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking </a></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2014/10/06/planet-fitness-guilty-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/" target="_blank">Planet Fitness guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking </a></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2015/03/27/optilead-ltd-engaged-in-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/" target="_blank">Optilead Ltd. engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking </a></li> </ol><p></p><p><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2016/06/29/company-guilty-reverse-domain-hijacking-refiling-case/" target="_blank">Continue reading...</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andrew Allemann, post: 2258771"] [B]Domain owner forced to defend himself twice despite unchanged facts.[/B] [IMG]http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/grow-it-all.jpg[/IMG]A company that sells an organic fertilizer has been [URL='http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-0879']found guilty[/URL] of reverse domain name hijacking after filing a UDRP for the second time. GBI Prosperities Pty Ltd. and Dr Grow It All Sales Pty Ltd. filed the UDRP against the owner of doctorgrowitall.com and drgrowitall.com. The domains are registered by a former business associate. One of the complainant’s principals, Danny Hood, [URL='http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2013-0723']filed a UDRP[/URL] over DrGrowItAll.com in 2013. He represented himself, and the panelist in that case noted that Hood really phoned it in. The panelist said the complaint “barely” met the qualifications of a UDRP filing. The complainants said there were a few reasons it should be able to refile the case. One is that the second domain was added. Another is that it wasn’t represented by counsel the first time and that its initial case was so poorly presented it should have been rejected as an invalid case. The third is that the complainants are different because the first time it was an individual and now it’s a company. The facts of the case did not change between the two filings. Panelist Warwick A. Rothnie noted that the respondent had to defend himself twice thanks to the refiled complaint, and found the complainant to have filed the dispute in bad faith. This case might make for a new type of RDNH category at [URL='http://RDNH.com']RDNH.com[/URL] — refiling cases. [URL='http://domainnamewire.com/category/podcasts/'][IMG]http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/dnw-podcast-rss.jpg[/IMG][/URL] © DomainNameWire.com 2016. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) domainnamewire.com. [B]Latest domain news at DNW.com:[/B] [URL='http://domainnamewire.com']Domain Name Wire[/URL]. The post [URL='http://domainnamewire.com/2016/06/29/company-guilty-reverse-domain-hijacking-refiling-case/']Company guilty of reverse domain hijacking after refiling case[/URL] appeared first on [URL='http://domainnamewire.com']Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Views[/URL]. [SIZE=4][B]Related posts:[/B][/SIZE] [LIST=1] [*][URL='http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/10/mediawhiz-nailed-for-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/']MediaWhiz Nailed for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking [/URL] [*][URL='http://domainnamewire.com/2014/10/06/planet-fitness-guilty-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/']Planet Fitness guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking [/URL] [*][URL='http://domainnamewire.com/2015/03/27/optilead-ltd-engaged-in-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/']Optilead Ltd. engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking [/URL] [/LIST] [url="http://domainnamewire.com/2016/06/29/company-guilty-reverse-domain-hijacking-refiling-case/"]Continue reading...[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Domain Discussion
Domain Industry Companies
Company guilty of reverse domain hijacking after refiling case
Top
Bottom