Displaying posts tagged under "udrp"
Former customer registered ten domain names to air grievances about the bank.
Union Bank has lost three domain name arbitration cases involving an upset former customer.
The bank filed three separate actions covering UnionBank.me, unionbancal.co, unionbank.cc, union-bank.co, mufgunionbankna.com, unionbancalcorp.com, unionbancal.net, unionbancal.org, unionbankna.com and unionbanks.net.
The domain names were all registered by William Bookout. At one point, his company had a Small Business Administration Loan with the bank. His loan went into default and he later filed bankruptcy, according to the decision. He was upset with how the bank handled his loan, so he created a number of gripe sites. Click here to continue reading…
Panels say it Smells Like B.S.
The company filed UDRP and aUDRP disputes against Darren Wilcox (Willcox) for the domain names nirvanadrums.com.au,
nirvanadrums.net.au, nirvanadrums.com, nirvanadrumsfilm.com and nirvanadrums.net.
Wilcox argued that he registered the domain names because of the concept of nirvana. However, his actions in negotiating a settlement with Nirvana certainly made it look like bad faith.
After saying he had out-of-pocket costs of about $2,500, Wilcox requested $1.5 million to transfer the domain names.
He later tried to justify the $1.5 million price tag (and threat of using the domains if no settlement was reached) by explaining that the $2,500 did not include “man hours, concept consolidation, trademark applications, future projects, and the amount of knowledge that the Respondent has about drums.”
That’s an awful lot of knowledge.
Wilcox also noted that Nirvana “is a considerable financial juggernaut”, a statement that will always look bad to UDRP panels.
Registrars will be required to lock domain names prior to registrant finding out about UDRP case.
ICANN has announced a July 31, 2015 implementation date for amended rules under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
The new rules were designed to thwart a practice of “cyberflight”, in which the owner of a domain name subject to a UDRP transfers the domain to another registrar to evade the policy.
Under the amended rules, registrars will have to place a defined lock on a domain name within two business days of receiving notice of a UDRP action — and before notifying the domain owner of the UDRP. Complainants no longer have to send a copy of their complaint to respondents as well, as this would tip them off and give them a chance to transfer their domain name.
If a registrar wants to remove whois privacy/proxy services, they need to do so before during the two day period.
The ICANN Board adopted the GNSO Council Policy Recommendations on the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings in September 2013.
Domain bought for $18,805 earlier this year saved in UDRP, but it was closer than it should have been.
In September, I wrote about the domain name Bespoke.com being hit with a UDRP after the buyer paid $18,805 to buy it in an expired domain name auction.
A three person WIPO panel has denied the UDRP, but one panelist dissented and the panel did not find reverse domain name hijacking. I find the dissent appalling. Click to continue reading…
Company went after CyclingTips.com.
Law firm ESQwire.com has scored yet another Reverse Domain Name Hijacking victory on behalf of a client.
Wallace Media Pty Ltd, which operates the cycling website CyclingTips.com.au, filed the case against the owner of CyclingTips.com. Wallace Media complained that people looking for its site often leave off the .au, leading them to the respondent’s domain name.
There were a lot of issues at play in this case, including when the respondent actually registered the domain name. Fundamentally, though, this case came down to a company adopting a highly descriptive domain name and then wanting to get common law trademark protection for it.
Wallace Media threw out a bunch of stats to show that its website is popular among Australian bicyclists. But what does that have to do with a domain name owner in Canada, who could have purchased the domain name for the same descriptive purpose? Click here to continue reading…