Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying posts tagged under "udrp"

  • Union Bank loses cases against gripe websites

    1. BY - Dec 18, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 0 Comments

    Former customer registered ten domain names to air grievances about the bank.

    Union BankUnion Bank has lost three domain name arbitration cases involving an upset former customer.

    The bank filed three separate actions covering,,,,,,,, and

    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…

  • Nirvana gets domain names from Australian man who demanded $1.5 million

    1. BY - Nov 20, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 5 Comments

    Panels say it Smells Like B.S.

    NirvanaNirvana LLC — the company that owns the intellectual property from the late grunge band Nirvana — has won control of five domain names registered by an Australian man.

    The company filed UDRP and aUDRP disputes against Darren Wilcox (Willcox) for the domain names,,, and

    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.

  • UDRP rule changes coming next year to thwart “Cyberflight”

    1. BY - Nov 18, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 6 Comments

    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.

  • saved in UDRP, but no RDNH and unbelievable dissent

    1. BY - Nov 14, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 20 Comments

    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 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…

  • owner guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

    1. BY - Nov 05, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 1 Comment

    Company went after

    Law firm has scored yet another Reverse Domain Name Hijacking victory on behalf of a client.

    Wallace Media Pty Ltd, which operates the cycling website, filed the case against the owner of 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…