Domain Name Buyer Vs. Italian Tire Giant

[jberryhill]

Zero.us:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/938180.htm

187.com

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/944807.htm

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Zero.us:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/938180.htm

187.com

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/944807.htm

Nice work John. Frivolous complaints which hopefully will be noted by the wanabee reverse hijackers.

 

[Deleted member 70408]

Great work as usual.

 

[companyone]

Very nice work John!

Best,
Dan

 

[Dave Zan]

Talk about a double whammy. Too bad they weren't decided as reverse.

Bit off-topic, but is there a case where the respondent sued the complainant
in Court for "damages" or something like that because of this and won?

 

[jberryhill]

Bit off-topic, but is there a case where the respondent sued the complainant in Court for "damages" or something like that because of this and won?

There have been reversals of transfer decisions, but nobody has ever had the stomach to double down after a UDRP win.

In situations where it has been threatened, the complainant either assumes the balled armadillo position or ponies up before it goes to court.

 

[stuff]

Talk about a double whammy. Too bad they weren't decided as reverse.

Bit off-topic, but is there a case where the respondent sued the complainant
in Court for "damages" or something like that because of this and won?

something like this?
http://www.compana.com/UDRP.htm

 

[jberryhill]

Talk about a double whammy. Too bad they weren't decided as reverse.

As a practical matter, RDNH has been ruled out of existence.

There is a line of RDNH decisions where the Panel essentially says, "We aren't going to call them 'bad guys' because they were too stupid to understand a UDRP claim."

Now, a RESPONDENT doesn't get the defense of "I was an idiot". The Panel never says, "Oh the Respondent was too dumb to realize he was cybersquatting, so we aren't going to rule against him."


http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/937081.htm

Complainant’s resultant disappointment at being rebuffed, and the filing of the instant action may have been based upon naiveté, or even an inflated sense of entitlement. But there is not sufficient evidence to indicate that the sole motive in seeking the purchase was to seize Respondent’s goodwill for their own, or to flip the name for substantial profit.

This Panel rules that the bar for achieving a ruling of reverse domain name hijacking should be set at such a formidable height, that Complainant is not deterred or chilled in exercising its rights in an approved Forum to seek a determination of domain name ownership, even in an arguably close case.

You see... if we dissed Complainants for bringing stinky cases, then they might be discouraged from bringing them.

 

[Dave Zan]

something like this?
http://www.compana.com/UDRP.htm

I actually forgot about Compana, but that's it. Thanks!

You see... if we dissed Complainants for bringing stinky cases, then they might be discouraged from bringing them.

Heh, one can only hope.