Featured Domains

TrueName by donuts. Make a name for yourself

Domain Owner sues National Arbitration Forum and complainant after losing UDRP

Lawsuit names UDRP complainant and National Arbitration Forum.

VirtualPoint, Inc., which operates the site UDRPSearch.com, has filed a lawsuit after losing a UDRP for the domain name WindCreek.com.

The company filed the suit (pdf) against not only the complainant in the case but also the National Arbitration Forum.

Against complainant Poarch Band of Creek Indians, VirtualPoint alleges that the group fraudulently obtained its Wind Creek trademarks and manipulated evidence by searching for a specific keyword on the WindCreek.com parked page.

In an unusual move, VirtualPoint also named UDRP venue National Arbitration Forum (NAF) in the suit. It alleges that “NAF attributes factual assertions in the Respondent allegations section that were not stated by either Respondent (i.e., Plaintiff) or Complainant…”

Specifically, VirtualPoint is upset that the decision states that the plaintiff is a “generic domain name reseller”, and that the decision contains an error stating that it used a privacy service.

It asked NAF to remove or redact the decision, but NAF declined.

The most in-depth analysis of the global domain market

Get Our Newsletter

Stay up-to-date with the latest analysis and news about the domain name industry by joining our mailing list.

No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Reader Interactions


    Leave a Comment

  1. Steve

    Awesome maybe the arbi”traitors” will think twice before they give away generics next time. Good luck Virtual Point! Many times the decisions read like the arbitrator was looking for a reason to award the domain. Even if your site was showing ads it shouldn’t be most times you are unable to tweak the parking providers system to keep them out. Like it was mentioned anyone could easily manipulate search results to show the complainants ads on a parked page. The system should allow the domain owner to stop showing ads and replace with an unoffending lander. Hopefully one day this ridiculous system will grow up.

  2. Jay

    That dude has massive balls.

    This is good for all domain owners because many times UDRP Arbitrators work really sloppily and keep stating their own biases and misconceptions as facts in UDRP cases over and over again and noboby has so far called them out on that like this.

    UDRP venues should have quality control processes in Place so that arbitrators who state their biases and misconceptions as facts are removed from deciding UDRP cases.

    When it comes to UDRP complainants manipulating the search feed optimization, based on my own experience I can say this happens a lot, because I have had it happen to me several times and then the Company wanting the domain threatened UDRP but after I told them that I have caught their manipulation of search feed optimization through my stats based on completely unprobable increases on visitor counts and search term behavior they all have backed off.

  3. Steve

    Maybe going after the system and individual arbi”traitors” when a bad decision is made should be a part of every case plan????
    A Mickey mouse system riddled with abuse and STILL NO PENALTY FOR RDNH???? If premiums domains were not so valuable this would be a joke.

  4. Raphaello

    Pity they didn’t opt for a three party panel initially in which case the UDRP decision might have been different.

    However the option of a three party panel costs extra money for the defendant, and why do so when you have a strong case and believe the process will be fair as you will have spent all this money simply to keep your domain name.

    Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson was the sole NAF panelist. If NAF loses this case, will NAF retain Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson as one of their panelists?

    We await the outcome of the case.

    • Rawlpindi

      Yes, Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson was the sole NAF panelist in this case.

      As an organization NAF is a bit faceless and have got lots of cash, so in the event of a win against them, seeking financial damages ain’t going to make any difference.

      It would be better to make the case against the panelist themselves.

      In the event of a win, it would hit the panelist in the pocket and be a dent in their reputation. This would then send the other panelists in the future scuttling fearful of being sued in the event of them making rogue decisions.

Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
%d bloggers like this: