Company that makes UDRP threat found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
“If you don’t sell me your domain for $2,000, I’ll file a UDRP against the domain name.”
That’s effectively what a United Kingdom company threatened against the owner of the domain name edgePOS.com, according to the findings of a recent UDRP decision.
John Henderson (Holdings) filed a UDRP complaint against Xiaodong Zhang of Austin, Texas, over the domain name. Zhang said he registered the domain name for a point of sale system before the complainant wanted to start using the term.
According to Zhang, the complainant communicated with him on March 19, 2012 to ask him to sell the Disputed Domain Name (again). Following the respondent’s refusal the complainant threatened to institute a UDRP if the Zhang did not agree to an “offer of $2000”.
Ouch.
Perhaps John Henderson Holdings should have read up on the UDRP before making this claim. Its subsequent filing apparently lacked any support that Zhang registered and used the domain in bad faith.
Panelist Alistair Payne found in Zhang’s favor and also found John Henderson Holdings guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
Acro says
The complainant was clearly a “POS” 😀
John UK says
This Complainant is infact NOT an individual but a company, and who can be seen here make a tidy profit so could afford to pay much more if they werent so tight: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/opinion/john-simpson/company-snapshot-john-henderson-holdings-ltd-14276017.html
Andrew Allemann says
@ John UK – I’ve updated the story to reflect it’s a company, not a person
Chris says
So what happens when you are found of reversing hijacking?
Andrew Allemann says
@ Chris – nothing really. could make it harder to win UDRP in the future.
James says
I second Chris’ question. Is the guilt criminal or civil, and is there a penalty?
Chris says
That is very lame. The whole point that reverse hijacking means is that you tried to literally take something that you had no right to, and the person who owns the domain had to waste their time (and money if they hired a lawyer). The whole UDRP process is broken and makes no sense. Its like one of those laws that they wrote back in the 1800’s which made sense in those times but makes no sense in modern day, yet it is still on the books. ICANN certainly has enough $$$ in the coffer to hire someone who is smarter then them to come up with a new process.
My two cents… you want to file a UDRP you pay an additional $2,500 that goes into Escrow. If you are found guilty of reverse highjacking that $2,500 goes to the domain owner. Maybe we’d see less of the frivolous claims that are made out there.
Mike says
Interesting, same thing happened to me, I get an email offering $ 10K for a premium domain and saying that if I will not sell he will file a UDRP, I have the domain since 2001 and there is no TM, till now he didn’t filed, lets see…..
Acro says
I thought the Scots were tightwads, not the Irish 😀
rob sequin says
Hopefully now this article will show up #1 in search results for John Henderson Holdings but too bad UDRP does nothing to complainants who obviously abuse the system.
John Berryhill says
One of the reasons why RDNH rulings are infrequently seen is that many panelists themselves question “What’s the point?”
Here’s the point:
Lawyers get paid by their clients to counsel them on filing UDRP complaints, and they bill their clients for it handsomely.
No lawyer wins every case. I don’t care what extravagant boasting puffery is on their self-flattering websites. Going in to any dispute, any decent lawyer advises the client “we might win, we might not” and discusses how the outcome might go one way or the other.
However, what is very difficult to explain to a client, and should give a lawyer pause, is the possibility not of losing the case, but of being chastised and humiliated before their client for having filed the case in the first place.
People that are only focused on dollars and cents, or who otherwise have no sense of shame, are not going to understand that point. But in those cases where the claim is clearly out of bounds, I do ask the panel “Why do people file complaints like this?” And the answer, at least as it seems to me, is that they are not duly scolded for having done it.
I think any attorney that is cited for what amounts to malicious prosecution, and has to explain that to his or her client, is likely to think twice before doing it again.
ziggy says
I like this one:
08-May-2012
1436198
marlborogreen.com
Philip Morris USA Inc. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name
TRANSFERRED
04-May-2012
Paul says
Attempted murder or kidnapping is a crime. Likewise attempted reverse hijacking is also a serious crime.ICANN should do something to prevent the attempted reverse hijackung, thereby protecting the rights of domain owners,i.e their clients.I do not think making money is not the only purpose of ICANN.