No one has ultimately prevailed after filing a UDRP against Name Administration.
Before you filed a UDRP, you’d think you’d google the domain name’s owner to learn more.
Yet time after time I see people file long shot UDRP complaints against Frank Schilling’s Name Administration.
Today’s winner is the company that filed against Klipz.com.
Since the case was filed at National Arbitration Forum, we don’t yet know who the complainant is.
There’s one registered trademark filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for “Klipz”. That trademark was filed in 2010 on an intent-to-use basis. Yet Name Administration has owned the domain name Klipz.com for a long time. The oldest whois record at DomainTools shows he has owned it since at least 2006. The domain was last registered in 2004.
I don’t know for sure if the owner of the U.S. trademark is the filer, so I’ll leave their name out if it…for now.
But let me help others who might be thinking of filing a UDRP against Name Administration:
I get it. You really want that domain, and Name Administration doesn’t let its names go for cheap. But filing a UDRP is just wasting your money and time.
If Name Administration somehow let a bona fide trademark name through, it will quickly hand the domain over upon your request. So if it hasn’t done that, you probably don’t have much of a case. In fact, 30 of the 31 complaints ever filed against Name Administration have lost. And do you know what happened to that 1 out of 31? They found themselves fighting a lawsuit in Grand Cayman.
The price of the domain will surely go up after you lose.
The message is this: filing a UDRP against Name Administration won’t work. It’s a waste of time.
You’re welcome.
This latest steaming pile starts with “Since at least as early as 2011…”
Okay, boys and girls, it’s quiz time. Why might the domain name “klipz” be targeted to “office supplies”?
(and, as you can tell from screenshots.com, has been targeted to office supplies for years)
If you can solve the riddle of why something that sounds like “clips” has been advertising office supplies for the better part of a decade, then congratulations – you have more functioning brain cells than Max Moskowitz of the firm of Ostrolenk Faber.
Some (if not all) of those (U.S.-based) complainants probably think Frank and Name Administration are “squatting” on their desired domain names, even though that’s not necessarily true. Of course, it’s just a point-of-view thing.
Those people can probably count themselves lucky that Frank and/or Name Admin hasn’t seen fit to get back at them in some way (except perhaps understandably jacking up the price), although Frank maybe knows life is too short for that.
Might the problem be related to the fact that “Name Administration” sounds rather like BS Whois filler? I think that might be part of it.
I think the end user (or the claimaint) doesn’t even know (or care) who are they competing against. Just because their law firm is simply interested in collecting their fees and they actually don’t care if they win this UDRP or not (at least those who don’t work on contingency fee 😉
@ Kevin Murphy – the full name in the whois is “Name Administration Inc. (BVI)”, which would at least warrant further investigation.
Kevin
What do you mean by your comment?
Specifically, the WhoIs filler part.
@John
I just means that to the untrained eye it’s vague enough that it could mean anything. It may as well say “The Owner” or something.
The registrant part of whois must name the actual company that owns the domain.
How about “Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers”?
I could understand someone overlooking that “Name Administration” is a company at first glance, but I think they’d figure it out before filing for arbitration.
“The registrant part of whois must name the actual company that owns the domain.”
Andrew – you’re not factoring in human nature and perception into the equation (unless I misunderstand your point).
Some people are more likely to act (or not) if something looks and quacks like a duck.
A name of “Name Administration Inc. (BVI)” located in the Cayman Islands might appear less legitimate as a “real” user vs. “Sydney Tool and Die, Canton Ohio”.
@ Larry,
I’d argue the Cayman thing would form someone’s initial impression before the name of the company would.
You’re right, it might initially create a perception. But before filing a UDRP a lawyer hopefully does some research.
“But before filing a UDRP a lawyer hopefully does some research.”
And both NAF and WIPO provide a “search by respondent” feature. This guy could hunt down Mr. Schilling’s biography, but couldn’t take five seconds to search UDRP decisions? The operative facts here do not differ from several of those.
The decision is in: the complainant in this case engaged in reverse domain name hijacking:
https://domainnamewire.com/2013/07/24/aptus-tech-nailed-for-trying-to-hijack-domain-name-from-frank-schilling/