Comments on: Dubai Law Firm Nailed for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

By: Dutch Boyd

Dutch Boyd — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:33:14 +0000

This is a big problem that’s going to get bigger if ICANN doesn’t do what we all know has to be done. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking needs to have a penalty or companies will just keep buying the $1,500 lottery tickets…

By: John Berryhill

John Berryhill — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:13:20 +0000

“An MJ is either where the respondent resides or where the registrar is located.”

Ah, thanks Paul… if you see her, could you tell her to come back home?

By: Karen Bernstein

Karen Bernstein — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:35:27 +0000

Paul, I agree. I also believe that ICANN Policy should institute some sort of Rule 11 standard. That would at least put some limits on how far complainant’s attorneys are going these days and make them pause before they file frivolous complaints because they are too greedy.

By: Paul Keating

Paul Keating — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:26:53 +0000

“Why have a financial penalty against UDRP abusers in the UDRP, and no financial penalty against cybersquatters?”

But there is (maybe). A UDRP finding of bad faith is a factual determination. The only recourse under the UDRP is by way of proceeding challenging the result under 4(k). By submitting the complaint the complainant must agree to the jurisdiction of a “mutual jurisdiction”. An MJ is either where the respondent resides or where the registrar is located. In cases where the MJ is in the US, the respondent may be able to file a claim for tortious interference, conversion, etc and assert the UDRP and other costs as a form of damage. It would be nice to see this occur and depending on the MJ it could even be a small claims action provided the local rules allow for foreign defendants.

By: John Berryhill

John Berryhill — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:54:56 +0000

“Itâ€™s past time that a UDRP Reverse Hijacking finding result in financial penalty. All parties have to agree with this in principle as there is no justifiable dissent that anyone could/can offer.”

The answer to this question has remained the same for years:

Why have a financial penalty against UDRP abusers in the UDRP, and no financial penalty against cybersquatters?

The domain registrant can go after the UDRP complainant on a tortious interference theory, among others. Typically, this sort of claim will settle long before it gets to court, since having a UDRP panel find that the complaint was an abuse of the process is pretty convincing evidence that it was an abuse of the process.

Just because you don’t see something happening is not an indication that it isn’t happening, and that’s about all I can say about that.

By: maqui berry

maqui berry — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:29:06 +0000

they may try for USA.com soon :p
as usa stands for united saudi association lol

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:56:30 +0000

@ BSA – OK, even worse.