Comments on: Eco Spat: Live Earth Charged with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

By: Colin

Colin — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:56:51 +0000

>> It seems inherently wrong that a company can switch to a UDRP when they have already made an unsolicited cash offer.

Agreed.

The whole thing stinks…

By: Steve M

Steve M — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:01:49 +0000

“I think evidence of a prior offer should be grounds for invalidating or dismissing a UDRP.”

That’s a great idea, MM.

But let’s not all hold our collective breaths waiting for it to happen…

…otherwise there’d be a lot of dead domainers lying around everywhere.

ps That clapping you hear is from the other 99.99 percent of the world who aren’t domainers.

By: M. Menius

M. Menius — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:16:52 +0000

It seems inherently wrong that a company can switch to a UDRP when they have already made an unsolicited cash offer. They contact you and offer money for a domain they’d like to have, but when a price cannot be agreed upon they then try to rape and pillage via UDRP.

I think evidence of a prior offer should be grounds for invalidating or dismissing a UDRP. The UDRP is way too easy to abuse, and there is no threshold for UDRP eligibility. All the fringe players (WIPO, NAF, panelists) get a cut of money … so no one has an interest in correcting the abuses.

By: EM @ KING.NET

EM @ KING.NET — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:38:04 +0000

Just a bad press? this is not enough punishment for domain hijacking. They should pay all the money spent to defend the domain.

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:24:37 +0000

jorge – bad press, and it can be used against you in future UDRP cases.

By: jorge

jorge — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:55:49 +0000

Is there a punishment for reverse domain hijacking? Or is it just bad press?

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:52:33 +0000

Elliot – is Live Earth associated with dot eco?