Reverse C&D letter - WOW!

[Lew]

"Arbitration" - where wipo "arbitrarily" takes names from their rightful owners.

 

[Ari Goldberger]

I have received numerous such letters directed to clients. The letters are sent to owners of domain names (e.g. dog.com) and allege that they have a UDRP action against the owner of (wwwdog.com). In my opinion, this letter is NOT an accurate statement concerning the UDRP because the UDRP requires that a complainant have a trademark on the word, not simply a domain name. In summary, the mere ownership of a domain name, without having a common law or registered trademark, does not establish a complaint under the UDRP. Accordingly, a domain owner is well advised not to throw out $5,000 on a case which it will likely lose.

 

[Lew]

Ari,


That part is obvious. The part that we are trying to understand is whether it is legal for this company to be sending out the letters in the first place.

Do you have any comments on that?

 

[Ari Goldberger]

I don't think sending out the letters is illegal per se. I think the key is what California ethics rules permit lawyers to do. If it is deemed that these lawyers are misrepresenting the UDRP law (and I'm not stating that as my opinion), then it could violate California rules regarding lawyer advertising.

 

[strongvis]

I got 3 of these in one day. stupid firm. they didnt even realize my name is more closely associated with another site and they should have contacted them. It's ambulance chasing imho... and they're scum. but if they send out a bunchof these lettrs and get one $5000 pop isnt iit worth it. LOL