UDRP was a waste of time and money.
Here’s another example of a UDRP case that should have never been filed.
A social media marketing firm that apparently just came into existence (or at least started using its brand) in 2010 filed a case against the owner of a domain registered in 2001.
Somedia Solutions, Inc., represented by Kurt D. Olender of OlenderFeldman LLP, filed the case against the owner of Somedia.com.
The complainant uses the domain name SomediaSolutions.com. It has a registered trademark for Somedia Solutions with a first use in commerce date of 2010 and a pending application for Somedia by itself.
It’s kind of funny that a company based on Facebook and Twitter marketing, which weren’t even a figment in someone’s imagination back when this domain was registered, would think they have rights to it.
Or it would be funny if it weren’t for both the complainant and respondent lawyering up for the case. Unless it was a lawyer friend, this was a costly affair for a case that should have never been filed.
Panelist Karl V. Fink found against Somedia Solutions but ignored the question of reverse domain name hijacking.
David J Castello says
This as obvious a case of Reverse Hijacking as I’ve ever seen. Need to start having penalties.
Acro says
Awful name for the new brand. Too close to SomeMedia dot com.
Nic says
There is a possibility that Somedia Solutions acted in good faith on bad advice. In any event, it now reflects on them as unscrupulous behaviour.
That is, Ms Romanaux and Ms Acosta of Somedia Solutions.
And for what? I agree with Acro, dreadful name.
But then, so is GoDaddy.
trololol says
Wow, no reverse hi-jacking? What a shock, that would mean people would actually THINK before they filed a UDRP…
The Arbitration forum should be investigated for fraud!
SL says
@Nic: I disagree. That possibility is extremely slim.
It takes 5 minutes of reading to figure out the absolute basics of UDRPs. Any competent businessperson would do this before giving the go-ahead to a lawyer.
In any case they deserve a reverse hijacking ruling for their antics. They were trying to hit the UDRP lottery and lost. Plain and simple.
Bung Hole Mixer says
What a sham that the NAF and WIPO in their “reviews” are allowing these cases to move to the UDRP process.
It’s time for either these Complainants to have to pay for when they lose, or we need to collectively sue the NAF and WIPO, or get our state solicitors to look into it.
NAF has already been proven to be a dirty, rotten organization with criminal-like elements to their organization. These guys are/were tied to professional bill collectors. You think they would ever do something that is right if it meant giving up a UDRP fee? No, of course not.
Also, what the hell is Panelist Karl V. Fink thinking by not finding for RDNH? Maybe more cases being offered to him?
He’s either ignorant, corrupt, or just plain stupid. I’m guessing corrupt.
.