Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Finding

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Just thought I would share an auDRP decision which we ran and obtained a successful decision.
The domain name is etg.com.au, not only did the registrant win but the Panel made a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking - which means a finding that the Complainant made the claim in bad faith. Hopefully it serves as a lesson for other complainants, that you cant just take LLL domains
Here is a link to the decision

 

[neddy]

the Panel made a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Great result Erhan - congratulations.

Interesting though that they pinged you on one of the three limbs ("Rights or Legitimate Interests") - yet still awarded a RDNH. Good news.

These are the bits I really liked:

The Complaint filed in the present proceeding was not complete and accurate and omitted the following relevant information:

a) That the Complainant’s administrative complaint to auDA about the Respondent had been dismissed.
b) That the Complainant attempted to purchase the Domain Name from the Respondent and was rebuffed.

3. The Complainant made an offer to purchase the Domain Name from the Respondent. This was rejected. The Complainant then commenced a proceeding to acquire a Domain Name that was registered six years before it could have conceivably acquired trade mark rights. In that proceeding it failed to disclose relevant information to the Panel. For all of these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Complainant was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

A simple lesson for everyone, don't try and withhold information from the Panel, it usually comes out.
very pleased with this one, it sends an important message, that the auDRP should not be abused.

 

[DomainNames]

Just thought I would share an auDRP decision which we ran and obtained a successful decision.
The domain name is etg.com.au, not only did the registrant win but the Panel made a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking - which means a finding that the Complainant made the claim in bad faith. Hopefully it serves as a lesson for other complainants, that you cant just take LLL domains
Here is a link to the decision

Now is the time for that RDNH auDA policy change. It has been too long!

When will it be in force in Australia exactly? i have raised it for more than 14 years to auDA with little or no response ever. Time for the new auDA team to get into action and protect existing legitimate domain name registrants from the RDNH scammers.

Fine the RDNH complainants and their scam lawyers using this tactic or they will never stop.
WWW.RDNH.COM
https://www.coopermills.com.au/reverse-domain-name-hijacking/
Every auDA staff, board member, panelists and IP lawyers needs to learn about RDNH and act to stop it.

 

[findtim]

Almost every time i read about a RDNH it has that the complainant with held information or even lied about dates etc.
don't these people know everything is recorded ?
tim

 

[DomainNames]

Almost every time i read about a RDNH it has that the complainant with held information or even lied about dates etc.
don't these people know everything is recorded ?
tim

To some of them they and their lawyers appear to care less.

"http://www.hallofshame.com/rdnh-case/carsales-com-au-limited-is-a-reverse-domain-name-hijacker/
carsales.com.au Limited is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case Number: Case #10
Complainant: carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria
Represented by: Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia

CarSales.com – The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker. "

Source: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0047.html​

Carsales.com.au ended up losing this case, where branded a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker" and then proceeded to buy the name Carsales.com from the legitimate owner for $400,000 USD.

It is called a "Plan B" by panelists now www.rdnh.com. They can't get the name by low offers to buy or legal threats so they lodge a complaint.....

 

[DomainNames]

To some of them they and their lawyers appear to care less.

"http://www.hallofshame.com/rdnh-case/carsales-com-au-limited-is-a-reverse-domain-name-hijacker/
carsales.com.au Limited is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case Number: Case #10
Complainant: carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria
Represented by: Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia

CarSales.com – The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker. "

Source: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0047.html​

Carsales.com.au ended up losing this case, where branded a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker" and then proceeded to buy the name Carsales.com from the legitimate owner for $400,000 USD.

It is called a "Plan B" by panelists now www.rdnh.com. They can't get the name by low offers to buy or legal threats so they lodge a complaint.....

Carsales.com.au Australia
Corrs Chambers, Westgarth - Lawyers Australia

7. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


In the Panel's view a finding of reverse domain name hijacking is warranted if the Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the Policy. The Panel is supported in this view by the earlier decision of underlying this Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. On-line Advice, WIPO Case No. D2003-0297. In the Panel's view such a finding is particularly appropriate where the Respondent's registration of the domain name predates the very creation of the Complainant's trademark.

In this case, the Panel is concerned by the Complainant's disingenuous conduct in relation to priority. The Complainant fails to disclose when it commenced business using or adopted its mark. The Complainant claim that it was unable to determine the date the Respondent's initial registration of the domain name runs counter to its own evidence in Annex A showing a creation date of October 1996. In the Panel's view this goes beyond the border of vigorous prosecution and falls in to the realm of abuse of the procedure by the Complainant.

In the Panel's view the Complainant's actions must have inevitably imposed burdens and costs upon the Respondent. The Panel is also concerned that abusive complaints risk diminishing the credibility of the entire UDRP process. The Panel finds reverse domain name hijacking.

8. Decision

The Panel dismisses the Complaint and declines to order a transfer of the domain name <carsales.com> as requested by the Complainant. The Panel also makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking against the Complainant."

 

[DomainNames]

Attorneys & Firms http://www.hallofshame.com/attorneys-firms/

Sad to see some Australian law firms guilty of RDNH involvement! Shouldn't they know better?

It can't be good for their involved lawyers reputation?

http://www.hallofshame.com/join-the-fight/

 

[DomainNames]

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/15/frank-schilling-gets-rdnh-win/
Panel rules that Bernina International is guilty of reverse domain name hijacking over Bernette.com domain name.

3. It’s a classic Plan B case in which the complainant filed a UDRP after failing to acquire the domain name through purchase negotiations.

4. Berryhill warned the complainant why it wouldn’t win a UDRP, but Bernina filed it anyway.