Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

[dvdrip]

I know what "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" is but I don't understand what the respondent wins if the panel founds that there was a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" attempt by the complainant.
If you win the UDRP what additional benefits does a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" bring?

 

[acesfull]

I know what "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" is but I don't understand what the respondent wins if the panel founds that there was a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" attempt by the complainant.
If you win the UDRP what additional benefits does a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" bring?

For me, it means you've exposed them for the scumbags that they are, and it's kind of like rubbing a dog's nose in it's own shi* when it does it on the living room carpet. In my opinion, a reverse domain hijacker is about 10 notches below a blatant cybersquatter, trying to abuse the rules and laws, spinning the UDRP wheel of fortune. I hope we can get a better answer from a lawyer here on the forum, but I'd also think it could help if you want to then go to court to sue for damages. It may also make them think twice before attempting another reverse hijacking.

 

[jberryhill]

If you win the UDRP what additional benefits does a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" bring?

Your choice of large plush toys.

 

[dvdrip]

John, you lost me...

 

[Dave Zan]

John, you lost me...

It's probably the heat from John's handling the fcc.com UDRP.

A panelist might or might not consider that RDNH should the complainant file
a similar dispute in the future.

 

[dvdrip]

A similar dispute connected to me only or with any other owner that has a similar domain?

 

[jberryhill]

John, you lost me...

Concentrate on these photographs...

http://www.capndesign.com/photo/images/december03/san_gennaro_2.jpg

http://www.islandamusementventures.com/UserFiles/Image/General Information Images/Midway Game.jpg


(and, yes, I'm catching up on my reading tonight)

 

[dvdrip]

So what is the point? Make my girlfriend happy?

 

[dvdrip]

I just found out that .ca domain resolution policy has this very interesting term.

"Registrant’s Claim Re Bad Faith of Complainant
CIRA Policy, para. 4.6, provides that if a Registrant is successful in resisting a complaint,
and if the Registrant can prove, on the balance of probabilities:
that the Complaint was commenced by the Complainant for the purpose of attempting, unfairly and without colour of right, to cancel or obtain a transfer of any Registration which is the subject of the Proceeding, then the Panel may order the Complainant to pay to the Provider in trust for the Registrant an amount of up to five thousand dollars ($5000) to defray the costs incurred by the Registrant."

This should be a great addition to UDRP.

 

[BELLC1]

... In my opinion, a reverse domain hijacker is about 10 notches below a blatant cybersquatter....

Or the equivalent of a political telemarketer.

 

[Theo]

ICANNT understand it either

 

[carlton]

... and if the Registrant can prove, on the balance of probabilities:
that the Complaint was commenced by the Complainant for the purpose of attempting, unfairly and without colour of right, to cancel or obtain a transfer of any Registration which is the subject of the Proceeding, then the Panel may order the Complainant to pay to the Provider in trust for the Registrant an amount of up to five thousand dollars ($5000) to defray the costs incurred by the Registrant."

This should be a great addition to UDRP.

I have never heard of a monetary award occurring to defray the costs incurred by the registrant. That is exactly what is needed to give Reverse Hijacking any teeth - but I assume that would be outside the scope of a UDRP proceeding, and only enforcible through the courts. The paltry $5000 penalty should be $50,000.

 

[Dave Zan]

I just found out that .ca domain resolution policy has this very interesting term.

"Registrant’s Claim Re Bad Faith of Complainant
CIRA Policy, para. 4.6, provides that if a Registrant is successful in resisting a complaint,
and if the Registrant can prove, on the balance of probabilities:
that the Complaint was commenced by the Complainant for the purpose of attempting, unfairly and without colour of right, to cancel or obtain a transfer of any Registration which is the subject of the Proceeding, then the Panel may order the Complainant to pay to the Provider in trust for the Registrant an amount of up to five thousand dollars ($5000) to defray the costs incurred by the Registrant."

This should be a great addition to UDRP.

That's probably put in because it's more realistically feasible to collect money
damages from .CA registrants. Imagine trying to do that for gTLD registrants
who live in Timbuktu.