Case was dead on arrival but panelist didn’t consider RDNH.
Panelist Sebastian M W Hughes has denied a UDRP brought against the domain name lean-solutions.com, but he failed to consider reverse domain name hijacking in a case that was dead on arrival.
Complainant Process Assets, LLC filed the dispute despite acknowledging that the respondent had been using the domain name since 2000 to promote consulting services. That’s well before Process Assets gained any sort of trademark rights in the term Lean Solutions.
Yet, it still made the argument that the domain owner registered the domain in bad faith, and referred to previous UDRP cases in which the domain was registered after a trademark existed.
These types of cases should be screened out in advance. Unfortunately, the domain owner had to expend time and/or money to defend the domain name he’s rightfully used for his business for over 15 years.
Chad f says
I have been barking up a tree for 10 years now saying this is the one major flaw of the current system. When you know there is little damage to file a complaint, why not file the theft attempt? Like the 100k cybersquating rule, they need to incorporate some penalty so the legitimate owner gets some compensation. This is holding our industry back with bad people leverage this flawed structure is asset protection.
Contrario says
The 100k cybersquatting rule you refer to is a court awarded settlement not a construct of the UDRP. If you prefer things be more equitable then financial damages should likewise be awarded to winners of UDRP claims since they are the legitimate owners of the domains they are having to pay to chase down cybersquatters
C.S. Watch says
Bearing in mind that the vast majority of UDRP complainants risk losing 10 cents’ worth of theoretically delayed typo traffic, whereas registrants risk losing assets with an inherent value which can reach 35 million USD.
Cybersquatter is a legal term of art which requires targeting. Abuse of the term generally goes hand-in-hand with an abuse of due process.
Simpless says
Every UDRP response should include the words “Panelists must consider RDNH” as the last sentence in the response, and the panelists will then be obliged to account for their reasoning.
C.S. Watch says
How boring is Minnesota that the ADR Forum can’t stop actively cultivating class actions for fraud? http://www.cpradr.org/About/NewsandArticles/tabid/265/ID/534/Details-from-the-Class-Action-Complaint-against-the-National-Arbitration-Forum-Web.aspx. The ‘iIllusion of due process’ indeed.
From Sebastian M.W. Hughes’ resume: “Has handled numerous English and Chinese language domain name proceedings, both as a legal representative for complainants, and as a panelist.” Leave nothing to the imagination, friend.
Hughes trades in ignoring 1) the relevant law, 2) the directive that panelists ‘SHALL find RDNH,’ 3) the disastrous effect of his decisions on future complainants/registrants, and 4) the ICANN mandate that the UDRP operate to unburden the courts:
“Contravening a solid wall of precedent, Hughes transferred CANARY.COM in 2013. Domain returned to owner.
He transferred BIBI.COM in 2014. Domain returned to owner.
He transferred BANCO24HORAS.COM in 2014. Domain returned to owner.”
Hughes’ ZT.COM decision alone should have put him on a global arbitration blacklist. Who specifically is accountable for the roster at the ADR Forum?
All of the above complainants ended up dead-on-arrival in court, with an expensive lesson in ethics. Real people, out six figures, outed forever online for violation of federal law…and for what?
When I hire a mercenary, I prefer he not shoot me in the face.