some international dispute decisions- Complaint Denied

[DomainNames]

Some good reading here. Note all the reverse domain hijacking decisions. Including one against Her Majesty The Queen re: NewZealand.com complaint

http://www.esqwire.com/

http://www.esqwire.com/newzealand.shtml

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/588486.htm

 

[payattention]

The NZ one is very interesting.

 

[DomainNames]

You can still be found guilty of being a " reverse Domain hijacker" even if you have trademarks, common law rights, past use of the name etc. Our .audrp panelists need to realise this and update their international domain law and decisions knowledge about what Reverse Domain highjacking is.

Many .audrp complaints are clearly "reverse domain hijacking" but it seems POSSIBLY some AUDRP panelists are a few years behind their international knowledge of what it means and what constitutes " "reverse domain hijacking".

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1183176.htm


http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0158.html

http://www.esqwire.com/ode.shtml

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/103447.htm

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1300901.htm

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/933942.htm

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0242.html

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0047.html [B]CARSALES.COM.AU [/B] TRYING TO GET CARSALES.COM

The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, 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. "



http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0365.html

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0535.html

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=d2010-1519

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004_0964.html

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1357.html

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0297.html

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/114418.htm

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1296997.htm

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/817103.htm

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00063.html

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0277.html

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1154.html

 

[johno69]

Did carsales.com.au buy carsales.com then?

They seem to control it now.

 

[Mike Robertson]

Did carsales.com.au buy carsales.com then?

They seem to control it now.

Would appear that way:

Domain Name.......... carsales.com
Creation Date........ 1996-10-18
Registration Date.... 2008-08-10
Expiry Date.......... 2013-10-18
Organisation Name.... CARSALES.COM LIMITED
Organisation Address. 77 Atherton Rd
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. Oakleigh
Organisation Address. 3166
Organisation Address. VIC
Organisation Address. AUSTRALIA

Admin Name........... Daniel Johnson
Admin Address........ 77 Atherton Rd
Admin Address........
Admin Address........ Oakleigh
Admin Address........ 3166
Admin Address........ VIC
Admin Address........ AUSTRALIA
Admin Email.......... daniel.johnson@carsales.com.au
Admin Phone.......... +61.390938652

 

[DomainNames]

Yes they bought it later ....but after pissing off the old owner with their reverse domain hijacking complaint which they lost they paid a great deal more for it than if they had acted in good faith with the old rightful owner.

Moral of the story is if you try and lodge fake complaints and still want the name chances are you will pay a lot more for it later if the owner eventually sells to you and you can get a bad public reputation and media attention even if you are a large company with a big law firm acting for you.