Arbitrator finds Versa Capital Management guilty of misusing UDRP proceedings.
Lately it seems that UDRP arbitration panels are ignoring the question of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH), which broadly defines when I company misuses or abuses the UDRP proceedings process. Panels aren’t required to consider RDNH, and many have decided to skip the issue altogether. (There are no penalties for committing RDNH.) But I guess it takes a particularly egregious and clear cut case to get an arbitrator’s blood boiling.
A case in point is VersaCapital.com. The sole arbitrator on the case found Versa Capital Management, LLC guilty of reverse domain name hijacking. Versa Capital made a number or arguments that the domain name VersaCapital.com was registered in bad faith, including that the owner offered to sell the domain name to it. The problem was that Versa Capital filed a trademark for the new firm in 2007, five years after the domain name was originally registered.
What’s particularly disappointing about this case is that a reputable law firm, Blank Rome, represented Versa Capital. I hope the lawyer tried to convince his clients that UDRP was not the correct course of action, and only proceeded at the request of his client.
PotentNames says
Good result. It would be better if a UDRP decision can rule for reverse hijackers to pay for the defendant’s costs.
Johnny says
I agree with PotentNames……if domain owners lose domains b/c of a bad faith registration and use under the UDRP, than RDNH decisions should include out of pocket expenses paid to defendant.
Is that not fair? Of course it is. Otherwise, it invites more UDRPs which the NAF and WIPO love since they have a vested interest in making money off the cases. 🙂
UDRPsearch.com says
They did, however, win VERSA.COM today:
http://www.udrpsearch.com/index.php?query=Versa+Capital&search=parties