- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,574
- Reaction score
- 12
I think the respondent needs to make that claim before the panelists can make that ruling but from the writeup, it seems that they would have made that ruling if it was claimed.
No. RDNH is not some kind of "counter-claim" to be raised by the Respondent. Rule 15(e) simply says:
http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm
If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
There is nothing in there about the Respondent being required to raise it or prove it.
Is it worth pointing out sometimes? Yes. In this case, I believe I made it very clear what was going on, and the Panel did consider it. In situations this egregious, IMHO requesting an RDNH ruling seems superfluous. This panel evidently thinks it's okay to fill a complaint with crap.
I remember that name was part of the names that were stolen back in march 2008.
No.
Purchased for $241,000 in October 2006:
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/domainsales/2006/domainsales10_24_06.htm
Stayed with same registrant until July 2008.