All.com domain dispute denied by WIPO panel; forgery claims too much to handle.
A three member WIPO panel has denied a complaint for the domain name All.com, saying the case is outside of UDRP’s scope.
The case involves an alleged sale of the domain name, to which the “buyer” produced documents showing the sale and transfer of money and the “seller” said he knows nothing about.
The complainant purchased the domain name in 2005 when it was registered at GoDaddy. He subsequently obtained a Mexican trademark on it. Then in early 2008 the domain was transferred to a different registrar and the contact information changed to All Ltd Kovalski Selena as registrant and Kovalski Selena (respondent) as Administrative, Technical and Billing Contact. All the contact addresses were shown as “123 South Biscayne Blv 112, Miami Florida 33235, USâ€. A courier seeking to deliver a copy of the complaint reported that this was an incorrect and inadequate address.
That’s when the case gets interesting.
The respondent, represented by Traverse Legal, claimed that she financed the domain purchase originally and the complainant had agreed to sell it to her later for $80,000. The Respondent gave evidence in the form of correspondence in 2005 under which the seller agreed to transfer to her for $80,000, of which $40,000 was said to have been paid in 2005. The document provided:
“Immediately upon delivery of Full Payment, Seller will take any actions that may be necessary or desirable to protect and perfect Purchaser’s title to the Property, including but not limited to, authorizing the change of registered ownership of the Domain Name with InterNic or other authorized entity.â€
The respondent said she paid the balance in January 2008.
The complainant alleged it was a forgery, and hired handwriting experts to provide opinions.
This is one case you can expect to head to the court of law.
John Bomhardt says
Another sex.com-like saga…
John
http://unplain.com
jack says
Traverse legal is about as shady as they come. Their strong suit is stealing generic domains (reverse domain hijacking)
Enrico S. says
Nice try Jack. Actually, Traverse Legal has never had a client who has had a reverse domain hijacking decision against them. We represent about 50% trademark holders and 50% domainers. Some domainers complain about trademark law as opposed to developing a business model which deals with the reality of trademark law (smart domainers know that it is much more likely that trademark law will continue to expand, rather than contract). The reality is that parked pages which feed advertisements of competitors of trademark holders take a significant risk for domain registrants. Smart domainers exclude advertisements from the PPC feeds which clearly infringe on the markets of trademark holders or remove trademark protected domains from PPC programs all together. If your domain is a good one, you will be better offer monetizing the domain through sale, than through PPC ads anyway.
But I notice you Jack have copyright protected content on your web site posted without permission of the copyright holder in order to increase traffic. So I would guess that what you are really saying is that you disagree with the federal trademark and copyright law. If you have a specific example of reverse domain name hijacking, I would be interested to hear it. Otherwise, you should know that in the above case, we represented the registrant/respondent whose domain was attempting to be transferred by a complainant asserting trademark rights to the word “all” registered in a foreign trademark office with no examination process.
jack says
Enrico S.
You have about as much credibility as a mosquito in a blood bank.
The bottom line is you have an affinity for obvious reverse domain hijacking cases.
Cases that anyone with integrity would have turned down.
Everyone has your #
David says
Call me blind and stupid, but I don’t see this UDRP being some obvious reverse domain hijacking case. Where’s the beef?
If one has a beef towards another party, that’s what lawyers, courts and mediation panels are for.
Marc J. Randazza says
Jack,
That’s a bit sleazy of you. Traverse has a fine reputation, Mr. Schaefer is widely respected. I follow domain name cases religiously, and I am unaware of a single case that he has brought which would call his judgment into question.
In fact, sullying himself by getting into an argument with an anonymous, no class troll is the only questionable thing he has ever done, as far as I am aware.
Note: I compete with him for business. It is in my economic interest to simply let you tear him down.