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 EasyGroup.com 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 DBAT.com 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 DBAT.com. 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 alessandro.com, 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…

Guy takes third stab at MySchool.com with lawsuit

Owner of MySchool411.com really wants MySchool.com, preferably without paying for it.

If at first you don’t succeed, try try again.

That’s apparently Joseph Carpenter’s belief.

Carpenter runs the site MySchool411.com. He filed a UDRP against MySchool.com in 2010 and lost. He filed another one last year and lost again.

Now he has filed an in rem lawsuit (pdf) against the domain name in a third attempt to get the domain name without buying it.

The lawsuit uses the Uniregistry whois privacy on the domain name to suggest that the “registrant” is based in Cayman, and thus justify the in rem lawsuit.

MySchool.com is certainly a valuable domain name. Original Web Ventures paid $42,000 to acquire the domain name in 2013. I don’t think it’s going to let this in rem action slip through, which means Carpenter may have bit off a bit more than he can chew.

(Thanks Mike for the tip.)

.Email domain name owner YoYo sues three Banks over UDRP

YoYo.email asks UK court to reverse UDRP decision.

YoYoYoYo.email has sued RBS Bank (Royal Bank of Scotland), Natwest Bank and Coutts & Co in the United Kingdom in an effort to overturn an adverse UDRP decision.

YoYo registered about 4,000 .email domain names when they came out, almost all of them reflecting brand names. The company plans to use the domain names for a certified email service.

But the registration of these brand names has drawn the ire of trademark holders, and YoYo has the distinction of being on the receiving end of the most URS/UDRP cases filed against a company over new top level domain names. Click to continue reading…