Comments on: Success Bank Unsuccessful in Domain Dispute

By: Open Domain Market

Open Domain Market — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:23:58 +0000

They are stupid.

By: Zoot

Zoot — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:53:57 +0000

Thanks but as much as I would like to take credit .. it was John that deserves the pat on the back. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when this guy had to explain the loss to the bank. I still laugh about what the guy labeled me … a sychic CyberSquatter.

By: Krispy

Krispy — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:35:16 +0000

Well done Ira.. now I won’t feel so bad taking you down on the poker table!!.

My guess is I wouldn’t want to be the executive responsible for all this sitting in the board room when the CEO asks ‘when can we start using the new domain name?’ lol
classic example of a company starting out and only now realising when they brand their ‘empire’ they have to consider .com as a part of that process. Its really that simple (and powerful)

By: Dave Zan

Dave Zan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:40:22 +0000

@Johnny

Unfortunately there’s no so-called requirement for decisions to be consistent with one another. As pointed out elsewhere, declaring RDNH might cause some parties to reconsider “doing business” with NAF or whatever applicable UDRP provider.

I do agree UDRP’s in need of an overhaul, if ever ICANN allows another comment period for that. Times have changed, and certain things need to adjust to those changes.

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:10:58 +0000

@ Johnny – I’ll have a guest article about that topic shortly.

By: Steve M

Steve M — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:59:53 +0000

Thanks, Ira.

By: Johnny

Johnny — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:07:53 +0000

Where’s the consistency?

Sometimes they find for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, sometimes they don’t. More often they do not call out the complainant on the RDNH . In most of the cases there is no reason for not finding the Complainant guilty of RDNH.

The UDRP is broken, and the IRT is a total all out war waiting to happen.