Verint.com -- very interesting WIPO case

[GeorgeK]

Take a look at this WIPO case:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0896.html

Very, very interesting reading -- gives you an idea of how "Marksmen" (those domain hunters) work, representing corporate customers.

The respondent didn't respond, but if they did they should have easily won a verdict of "reverse hijacking". But, they still won! Good ruling.

 

[pljones]

The lesson is, when launching a new brand or corporate name, make sure you have a domain name locked up first, rather than try to take it through the UDRP. Complainant would have been better off picking another name.

 

[GeorgeK]

What's funny is that now that the respondent has won, she could jack up the asking price from $55,000, to whatever she wants. And the complainant is a publicly traded stock with a market cap of $400 million+ so they had all this heartache over the difference between $55,000 and $20,000? Ridiculous! Almost 1 year later, they don't own the domain, and she's got them by the short hairs!! Nice negotiating, Marksmen -- NOT!

 

[NameBox]

Yes, GeorgeK, but "she" was hardly some poor domain speculator. You didn't mention that the judgement indicates, in great detail, that the respondent was a "respectable" business person, an executive at a publically traded company, who first registered the domains when her own company had considered the name "Verint" for a subsidiary.

A battle of the Titans so to speak. We don't know, given the bias evident in many judgements, whether a lowly member of this forum, with a history of some questionable registrations, would have had the same success.

I do agree, though, that given the respondent, the Complaitant should have realized that they had a battle on their hands, and that the facts weren't exactly in their favor!

 

[jberryhill]

There is another lesson to be learned here, particularly by anyone who has ever been contacted by Marksmen.

I have seen their sales pitch to attorneys, where they sell themselves as being able to solicit evidence of "bad faith", by baiting domain registrants into sales negotiations, and I have also seen the types of messages that they send to legitimate domain registrants.

What I did not know is that they provide a written investigative report which includes their opinion on alternatives available to their client.

Naturally, when a UDRP dispute arises over a name, and there has been some record of contact from Marksmen or one of its investigators (e.g. David Mitchell), it may be useful to point out that if the Complainant does NOT produce the Marksmen report, then the Complainant likely has a reason for holding it back.

You know, EVERYBODY here ought to trot over to their web site and fill out their customer contact form in order to ask whether you can hire them to represent you in negotiations to sell your domain name. Consider it "conflict of interest" insurance against having these nimrods sniffing around your backyard.

 

[Silverwire]

Originally posted by jberryhill
You know, EVERYBODY here ought to trot over to their web site and fill out their customer contact form in order to ask whether you can hire them to represent you in negotiations to sell your domain name. Consider it "conflict of interest" insurance against having these nimrods sniffing around your backyard.

Mr. Berryhill, let me be sure I have this straight. If one (hypothetically, of course) has a DN that would be a candidate for a TM challange, and they contact Marksmen to inquire (but do not actually hire) regarding representing them in the sale of that name, then:

1) Marksmen would not be able to later come after them with the TM holder as a client? Is this due to just ethics or legality?

2) The contact couldn't be used as a evidence of bad faith in UDRP as the DN holder is making a strong statement that the name is not being developed, but rather is for sale?

3) What if the TM holder has already contacted them first?

 

[NameBox]

Originally posted by Silverwire


Mr. Berryhill, let me be sure I have this straight. If one (hypothetically, of course) has a DN that would be a candidate for a TM challange, and they contact Marksmen to inquire (but do not actually hire) regarding representing them in the sale of that name, then:

1) Marksmen would not be able to later come after them with the TM holder as a client? Is this due to just ethics or legality?

2) The contact couldn't be used as a evidence of bad faith in UDRP as the DN holder is making a strong statement that the name is not being developed, but rather is for sale?

3) What if the TM holder has already contacted them first?

I do think that one would have to "hire" them in order for a conflict of interest to take place. This presupposes that they haven't already been "hired" by the TM holder, in which case your approach could be seen as evidence of "bad faith" would it not? In that you are actively marketing the domain ...

 

[jberryhill]

Take it with a grain of salt.

The simpler solution is to keep a list of the email addresses of every UDRP panelist, and then write to them to ask their opinion every time you register a domain name. Then, if they are appointed to a panel to decide your dispute, try to get them disqualified.

(and, no, I'm not entirely serious about that one either)

 

[Silverwire]

Originally posted by jberryhill
Take it with a grain of salt.

The simpler solution is to keep a list of the email addresses of every UDRP panelist.

Please e-mail me the list of addresses. Maybe a phone call would be more effective.