DomainNames
Top Contributor
Over recent years I have had assisted in the defence of several highly valuable domain names of several complaints. I have defended those complaints by myself and won every time against some of the biggest law firms around. I suggest every domainer learns more about " reverse domain name highjacking" and helps to fight against it.
The process normally is the same
1. email and letter from the complainant asking to buy it ( DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS IF YOU DONT WANT TO SELL IT)
2. email and letter from the complainants lawyer claiming " their right " to the domain name ( EMAIL THEM BACK AND SAY YOU DONT WANT TO SELL IT AND YOU BELIEVE YOUR ELIGABILITY IOS VALID AND WILL DEFEND ANY " REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIGHJACKING ATTEMPTS"
3. Email from Auda to prove bona fide registrant eligability ( after the complainant lodged complaint via their online form)
The costs and time burden to respondant / registrant to defend their eligability can be large
1. To correctly lodge a defense takes a lot of time and paperwork. To rightly defend the rights of the respondant ( registrant) Australia needs to introduce the same protection as they have put into the Canada Policy. This stops greedy lawyers threatening rightful owners and bullying them into handying over valuable assets ( generic domain names)
http://cira.ca/assets/Documents/CDRPpolicy.pdf
4.6 Bad Faith of Complainant. If the Registrant is successful, and the Registrant proves, on a 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 in preparing for, and filing material in the Proceeding. The Complainant will be ineligible to file another Complaint in respect of any Registration with any Provider until the amount owing is paid in full to the Provider.
2. Dont be fooled by lawyers that trademarks , business names etc all grant other people right to your valuable generic domain name. A generic domain name is just that " generic" Fight hard and at all times lodge a claim for a finding of reverse domain name highjacking
3. yes its true in reading decisions its obvious Some panelists in Australia side more on the side of large lawyers even thought the registration was for a generic word. More needs to be done to stop panelists making wrong decisions using outdated thinking and poor domain name law "expertise"
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...QBSgA&q=reverse+domain+name+hijacking&spell=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_domain_hijacking "REVERSE CYBERSQUATTING" is attempted by some of the largest law firms still in Australia - help fight it in Australia and get AUDA to stop it!
http://www.domainnamenews.com/legal...iners-stop-frivolous-dispute-proceedings/5508
The process normally is the same
1. email and letter from the complainant asking to buy it ( DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS IF YOU DONT WANT TO SELL IT)
2. email and letter from the complainants lawyer claiming " their right " to the domain name ( EMAIL THEM BACK AND SAY YOU DONT WANT TO SELL IT AND YOU BELIEVE YOUR ELIGABILITY IOS VALID AND WILL DEFEND ANY " REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIGHJACKING ATTEMPTS"
3. Email from Auda to prove bona fide registrant eligability ( after the complainant lodged complaint via their online form)
The costs and time burden to respondant / registrant to defend their eligability can be large
1. To correctly lodge a defense takes a lot of time and paperwork. To rightly defend the rights of the respondant ( registrant) Australia needs to introduce the same protection as they have put into the Canada Policy. This stops greedy lawyers threatening rightful owners and bullying them into handying over valuable assets ( generic domain names)
http://cira.ca/assets/Documents/CDRPpolicy.pdf
4.6 Bad Faith of Complainant. If the Registrant is successful, and the Registrant proves, on a 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 in preparing for, and filing material in the Proceeding. The Complainant will be ineligible to file another Complaint in respect of any Registration with any Provider until the amount owing is paid in full to the Provider.
2. Dont be fooled by lawyers that trademarks , business names etc all grant other people right to your valuable generic domain name. A generic domain name is just that " generic" Fight hard and at all times lodge a claim for a finding of reverse domain name highjacking
3. yes its true in reading decisions its obvious Some panelists in Australia side more on the side of large lawyers even thought the registration was for a generic word. More needs to be done to stop panelists making wrong decisions using outdated thinking and poor domain name law "expertise"
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...QBSgA&q=reverse+domain+name+hijacking&spell=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_domain_hijacking "REVERSE CYBERSQUATTING" is attempted by some of the largest law firms still in Australia - help fight it in Australia and get AUDA to stop it!
http://www.domainnamenews.com/legal...iners-stop-frivolous-dispute-proceedings/5508
Last edited:
