Comments on: Ace.com Owner Wins Arbitration http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/ News and Views for the Domain Name Industry Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:34:27 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Francisco http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-308665 Francisco Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:28:46 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/#comment-308665 Well I had no idea that domain hijacking was so rampant, especially for 3 char domains. I know that three character domains can go for a nice junk of change, especially one like ACE which is great brandable domain. Where as other three character domains probably aren't that brandable. Who knows though... Well I had no idea that domain hijacking was so rampant, especially for 3 char domains. I know that three character domains can go for a nice junk of change, especially one like ACE which is great brandable domain. Where as other three character domains probably aren’t that brandable. Who knows though…

]]> By: Two Important UDRP Decisions | PostHits.com http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-169813 Two Important UDRP Decisions | PostHits.com Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:51:22 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/#comment-169813 [...] on two important UDRP decisions that were announced in the past two days. Shoppers.com and Ace.com were both retained by the current owners after large companies filed a complaint for each of these [...]

[...] on two important UDRP decisions that were announced in the past two days. Shoppers.com and Ace.com were both retained by the current owners after large companies filed a complaint for each of these [...]

]]> By: Domain Name News » WebMagic Keeps Ace.com After Dispute http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-168555 Domain Name News » WebMagic Keeps Ace.com After Dispute Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:29:50 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/#comment-168555 [...] [National Arbitration Forum - Full Decision] [Domain Name Wire - “Ace.com Owner Wins Arbitration“] [...]

[...] [National Arbitration Forum - Full Decision] [Domain Name Wire - “Ace.com Owner Wins Arbitration“] [...]

]]> By: damir http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-167640 damir Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:59:12 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/#comment-167640 GREAT NEWS - I hope that EVERY EVIL Company which wants to steal a domain name from a domain name owner via Arbitration losses money and goes bust - out of business. First person comes to a party get's the cake (registeres the domain name) - if the other party wants the cake (domain name) they should buy it from the domain name owner (Seller). Today's Company's are slowly waking up and realize that the domain names are priceless when it comes to expanding and establishing a great online presence so Idiotic and pathetic Company's gave some money (bribes) to some senators in the USA Government so they can approve the Snowe Bill so this Idiotic Pathetic Company's can steal the domain names from the domain name owners via Arbitration. GREAT NEWS – I hope that EVERY EVIL Company which wants to steal a domain name from a domain name owner via Arbitration losses money and goes bust – out of business.

First person comes to a party get’s the cake (registeres the domain name) – if the other party wants the cake (domain name) they should buy it from the domain name owner (Seller).

Today’s Company’s are slowly waking up and realize that the domain names are priceless when it comes to expanding and establishing a great online presence so Idiotic and pathetic Company’s gave some money (bribes) to some senators in the USA Government so they can approve the Snowe Bill so this Idiotic Pathetic Company’s can steal the domain names from the domain name owners via Arbitration.

]]> By: Andrew http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-167412 Andrew Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:55:12 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/#comment-167412 @ Tommus - finding that a company engaged in RDNH is really just harsh words from the panel. A slap on the wrist. It could be brought up in a future case involving the complainant, though. It also doesn't free the domain from future claims. It's really just a knock against the current complainant. Anyone who knows otherwise feel free to comment... @ Tommus – finding that a company engaged in RDNH is really just harsh words from the panel. A slap on the wrist. It could be brought up in a future case involving the complainant, though.

It also doesn’t free the domain from future claims. It’s really just a knock against the current complainant.

Anyone who knows otherwise feel free to comment…

]]> By: Scott Neuman http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-167384 Scott Neuman Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:58:26 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/#comment-167384 Amazing - Ace.com. Hey that's my trademark. Give it to me. Such a common name. Should never have seen the light of day in court. Amazing – Ace.com. Hey that’s my trademark. Give it to me. Such a common name. Should never have seen the light of day in court.

]]> By: tommus http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-167273 tommus Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:20:31 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/2008/04/11/acecom-owner-wins-arbitration/#comment-167273 Andrew, you said that the panel Didn't find reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH). Wonder if you can clarify what does it really mean with regards to the complainant, to the respondent and to the domain in question. I think what I am asking is say when a panel found RDNH against a Complainant for a particular domain, is that domain free from claim from other, future potential Complainants? thanks. Andrew, you said that the panel Didn’t find reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH). Wonder if you can clarify what does it really mean with regards to the complainant, to the respondent and to the domain in question.

I think what I am asking is say when a panel found RDNH against a Complainant for a particular domain, is that domain free from claim from other, future potential Complainants?
thanks.

]]>