Comments on: Ari Goldberger Defends PropellerHead.com http://domainnamewire.com/2009/03/03/ari-goldberger-defends-propellerheadcom/ News and Views for the Domain Name Industry Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:50:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: michael berkens http://domainnamewire.com/2009/03/03/ari-goldberger-defends-propellerheadcom/comment-page-1/#comment-352026 michael berkens Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:13:24 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/?p=4919#comment-352026 Andrew Yes Ari did ask for such a finding. Andrew

Yes Ari did ask for such a finding.

]]> By: Jamie Zoch http://domainnamewire.com/2009/03/03/ari-goldberger-defends-propellerheadcom/comment-page-1/#comment-351879 Jamie Zoch Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:46:50 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/?p=4919#comment-351879 Thank you Michael @ # 3. Thank you Michael @ # 3.

]]> By: Johnny http://domainnamewire.com/2009/03/03/ari-goldberger-defends-propellerheadcom/comment-page-1/#comment-351863 Johnny Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:17:55 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/?p=4919#comment-351863 Andrew....I have been following recent UDRP cases and have noticed a trend by panelists where they just plain ignore the notion of reverse domain name hijacking now. It's as if they have all secretly agreed that they are going to stop giving domain owners their due rights. That is extremely odd that no follow-up comment about the reverse domain hijacking decision. It's bizarre. Could you imagine if a court saying a defendant is guilty but not giving a reason for the conclusion? . Andrew….I have been following recent UDRP cases and have noticed a trend by panelists where they just plain ignore the notion of reverse domain name hijacking now.

It’s as if they have all secretly agreed that they are going to stop giving domain owners their due rights.

That is extremely odd that no follow-up comment about the reverse domain hijacking decision. It’s bizarre.

Could you imagine if a court saying a defendant is guilty but not giving a reason for the conclusion?
.

]]> By: Andrew Allemann http://domainnamewire.com/2009/03/03/ari-goldberger-defends-propellerheadcom/comment-page-1/#comment-351850 Andrew Allemann Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:02:21 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/?p=4919#comment-351850 Michael - I assume Ari asked them to find reverse domain hijacking? It seems like panels are just taking the easy way out. I know they don't get paid much, but they have a duty to follow the guidelines. Michael – I assume Ari asked them to find reverse domain hijacking? It seems like panels are just taking the easy way out. I know they don’t get paid much, but they have a duty to follow the guidelines.

]]> By: michael berkens http://domainnamewire.com/2009/03/03/ari-goldberger-defends-propellerheadcom/comment-page-1/#comment-351831 michael berkens Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:43:23 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/?p=4919#comment-351831 Jamie Figure on somewhere around $3-6K per depending on who you use, how much volume you have and whether you opt for a 3 member panel or go with 1 guy Jamie

Figure on somewhere around $3-6K per depending on who you use, how much volume you have and whether you opt for a 3 member panel or go with 1 guy

]]> By: Jamie Zoch http://domainnamewire.com/2009/03/03/ari-goldberger-defends-propellerheadcom/comment-page-1/#comment-351822 Jamie Zoch Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:34:57 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/?p=4919#comment-351822 Andrew or Michael, could you provide an "average cost" that it takes to defend a case like these from the domain owner's side? The other way around as well if you happen to know. Let's say somebody using Ari's team to defend etc. Andrew or Michael, could you provide an “average cost” that it takes to defend a case like these from the domain owner’s side? The other way around as well if you happen to know. Let’s say somebody using Ari’s team to defend etc.

]]> By: michael berkens http://domainnamewire.com/2009/03/03/ari-goldberger-defends-propellerheadcom/comment-page-1/#comment-351767 michael berkens Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:49:45 +0000 http://domainnamewire.com/?p=4919#comment-351767 Andrew Was just going to write on this topic. I won a similar case yesterday with brassrail.com, with Ari representing us as well. The panel found that the complainant didn't even meet the first requirement of the 3, they have to meet,and dismissed the claim on that basis. If you have to meet 3 criteria and fail to even meet the first, shouldn't that be enough to show reverse domain hijacking? Andrew

Was just going to write on this topic.

I won a similar case yesterday with brassrail.com, with Ari representing us as well.

The panel found that the complainant didn’t even meet the first requirement of the 3, they have to meet,and dismissed the claim on that basis.

If you have to meet 3 criteria and fail to even meet the first, shouldn’t that be enough to show reverse domain hijacking?

]]>