Miami chef alleges web designer is holding domain name hostage

Personal chef claims he can’t get his domain name back and former web marketing firm is sabotaging his new website.

Chef Stuart Shaw switched his domain name to (pictured) and claims his former web firm is holding his old domain hostage.

A Miami personal chef has sued the owner of a web design/marketing company, alleging (pdf) that the company held his domain name hostage after he canceled services.

Stuart Shaw says he contracted with Need Marketing Group in 2007 to develop a site for him at He canceled the services in 2010, but claims that the defendant (an individual) would not allow him to transfer the domain name. Click here to continue reading…

2 panelists say RDNH, other says domain name should be transferred

How did one panelist think a domain should be transferred when the other two say the case was brought in bad faith?

It’s fairly rare that a panelist files a dissenting opinion in a UDRP. Usually a three person panel comes to the same conclusion, although occasionally you’ll see a dissent.

But a recent decision treads even further into “rare” territory: 2 panelists thought the case was so egregious, it qualified at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. A third panelist actually found in favor of the complainant.

The case pitted European giant easyGroup Limited against Hong Kong company Easy Group Holdings Limited, which registered the domain name in 1998. The domain was registered before easyGroup got any trademark rights in the name (it already ran EasyJet, but hadn’t yet become the conglomerate it is today). The respondent runs a business with the term “easy” in it. Click here to continue reading…

Frank Schilling defends in UDRP

Owner of .net domain name filed cybersquatting complaint.


Nothin’ but .net!

Baseball equipment company DBAT has lost a UDRP it filed against Frank Schilling for the domain name The baseball company uses the DBAT.NET domain name.

According to the decision (embedded below), DBAT originally threatened Shilling with a UDRP in 2009. It then tried to acquire the domain name through an attorney in 2012. While the details of the 2012 discussions are in dispute, it’s clear that the company tried to buy the domain name that year.

Three years after trying to buy the domain and 6 years after threatening a UDRP originally, DBAT brought a UDRP for the domain. Click to continue reading…

Wow, how was this case not reverse domain name hijacking?

WIPO panelist drops the ball in RDNH decision.

A single member World Intellectual Property Organization panel has denied a UDRP complaint against the domain name, but failed to find the complainant guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

Frankly, I’m stunned that panelist Pablo A. Palazzi did not find beauty products company Alessandro International GmbH to have brought the case in bad faith, and his rationale contradicts the facts of the case.

Alessandro International GmbH filed the complaint against Alessandro Gualandi of New York. Yes, the respondent’s name is Alessandro, and he registered his first name as a domain name.

The arguments made by the complainant are stunning: Click here to continue reading…

Oh my, Verisign is actually scared of new top level domains!

Company sues .XYZ and claims its marketing is hurting .com.

If you listen to any of Verisign’s quarterly investor calls, you’ll often hear analysts asking what new TLDs are doing to .com.

Well, new TLDs are creating confusion, the company says. That confusion isn’t really hurting .com. Maybe .net gets caught up in the confusion, but that’s about it.

Actions speak louder than words, though, and Kevin Murphy wrote about proof today that Verisign must actually be a bit concerned about .com in the wake of new TLDs. Click to continue reading…