Comments on: BerryHill Gets Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Charge Against Italian Company

By: Fin

Fin — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:21:11 +0000

Its a damn shame that the finding of RDNH dosn’t come with any penalty. Clearly an innocent domain owner’s name was put in jeopardy and suffered a financial loss on the whim of some corporate giant. Perhaps all those who file UDRPs should be required to post a bond, forfeiting a portion if they simply lose and all if they are found to be attempting a hijack.

By: Stephen Douglas

Stephen Douglas — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:33:54 +0000

congrats to John and Greg on the win. It goes to show that the nasty spin of words for domainers like “cybersquatter” or “cyberpirate” can go both ways, with terms like “Cyberhijacker” and “CyberOppresor” being applied to companies who think they can out-muscle legitimate generic domains from reputable domain investors.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:10:44 +0000

John, did you opt for one panelist because it was such a ’slam dunk’ with the particular panelist? I heard that ‘you should always pick a 3 person panel’

By: David

David — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:09:58 +0000

Followup: WIPO’s search function allows one to search for RDNH. Go to the link below:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/legalindex.jsp

Under “Legal index to WIPO panel decisions”, go to III.G.3 and check the box beside Found. Already I got some results:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/legalindex.jsp?id=12880.12910&id=12890

I’m somewhat able to get similar results in NAF, although it’s not as search-specific as WIPO’s currently:

http://domains.adrforum.com/decision.aspx

Type in reverse domain name hijacking or similar.

By: David

David — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:46:53 +0000

And the sweetest part? John did it with only one instead of 3 panelists.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:00:35 +0000

Thanks John.

I think the arbitration providers should be able to exclude companies from filing claims after they receive a certain number of RDNH affirmations by panels. Hopefully one is enough…

By: John Berryhill

John Berryhill — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:03:24 +0000

A repository of RDNH cases would be helpful, since the UDRP providers do not make them particularly easy to find. Most of the lawyers who defend domain registrants are aware of the ones they’ve obtained, and Ari keeps a list of his at esqwire.com. Off the top of my head, I can recall dw.com, paparazzo.com, fcc.com, windsor.com and multicast.com. While there is no material benefit, the moral vindication is gratifying.

While the panelist noted the date of the domain registration and the trademark, neither side raised it as an issue. Quite simply, decal.com was being used to advertise decals, and this was shown in the Complainant’s own exhibits. Accordingly, we did not bother to pay much attention to the various non-English trademark documents that accompanied the complaint.