This sure seems like an abuse of policy to me.
I just read the decision in a UDRP for SecretLab.com and TheSecretLab.com and I’m flumoxed as to why WIPO panelist Clive L. Elliott didn’t consider reverse domain name hijacking. The Respondent might not have asked for it, but Elliott still should have considered it.
1. The Respondent registered the domain names some 16 years before the Complainant existed.
2. The Complainant offered $20,000 for the domains before filing the UDRP.
3. According to the respondent, “Complainant contacted Respondent after the commencement of this proceeding and indicated that the proceeding was instituted to help Complainant gain leverage in its efforts to buy the Domain Names.”
That’s an abuse of policy if I’ve ever seen one. I mean, check out this part of the Complainant’s argument:
Complainant considers Respondent has registered and is continuing to hold and use the Domain Names in bad faith, having not used the Domain Names for over 20 years, and with the specific intent to take advantage of inadvertent mistakes by the Internet.
Complainant goes on to assert that there is no evidence that the Domain Names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and nor is Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial nor fair use of the Domain Names.
Complainant submits that this disrupts Complainant’s business and frustrates Complainant’s customers, or potential customers, who, not realising their mistake, are apt to blame Complainant for not having the web presence they expected when they reach the landing page.
This is a classic case of a company wanting to get domain names that were registered before it existed. It tried to buy them but got frustrated and filed a UDRP.
steve brady says
UDRP complainants at the time of filing must consent to having a warm bucket of spit poured on their heads if RDNH is found.
Joshua Davis says
This is straight out theft.
C.S. Watch says
You’re dead right, of course. But what choice did Secret Lab complainants Alaric Choo and Ian Yang have? They have no choice but to scramble over to the US market, because the word is out on their chairs in Asia/AU:
–“I see why they don’t sell these on Amazon, because they can’t control the reviews.”
–“Also, once I bought it, I realised it’s just not possible to make any comment on the website. Man, they are going to make a lot of money from scamming people like that.”
–“Its true, its truly uncomfortable.”
–“After a week of fighting them and the delivery company I found out they cancelled the order prior to first contacting me so I couldn’t have picked it up anyway.”
–“Astonishingly terrible.”
–“I’ll be calling my credit card company to do a chargeback because this is the biggest scam and piece of trash ever.”
https://www.productreview.com.au/listings/secretlab-omega.
What an distasteful chore this is, outing thieves. Panelists have a mandate to find RDNH. It gives future complainants the fair warning they are due under the Policy. RDNH is in place for the benefit of both sides.
Kemosabe says
The Complainant SecretLab SG Pte Ltd of Singapore was represented by Tara Adams Law, Australia.
Tara Adams Law claim: “with more than 15 years’ experience across all areas of trade mark law and prosecution in Australia and internationally, we offer a full range of IP and branding services and advice to our clients”. That means they are experts.
In Clive L. Elliott’s summary: “Respondent registered the Domain Names some 16 years before Complainant started using and seeking to register Complainant’s Marks. It is difficult under those circumstances to see how the registration of the Domain Names could constitute bad faith conduct.”
So, Tara Adams Law, experts in this sort of stuff, when submitting this UDRP case, knew or should have known that their case would fail.
Unlike in so many UDRP cases where complainants represented by specialist legal counsel knew or should have known that their case would fail (examples can be seen at http://trtl.com/knew-or-should-have-known.htm) it appears that WIPO panellist Clive L. Elliott didn’t even consider RDNH.
John says
Even Rod Serling would face palm over this script.
Domain Boss says
WIPO/UDRP panelists or let’s say most UDRP panelists are biased against the domain owner and favor the complainant because it’s their livelihood to keep the scam going.
Haere Ra says
Complainant’s attorney Tara Adams Law, Melbourne, Australia.
Sole WIPO panelist Clive L. Elliott, Auckland, New Zealand.
Thought it was the duty of panelists to consider RDNH even if not asked for.
No consideration of RDNH. A soupçon of empathy for fellow antipodean, maybe.
C.S. Watch says
Clive L. Elliott saw that atty Tara Adams is a starving incompetent and he wanted to play the nice guy. With other peoples’ money. Full stop.
If Elliott wants to look the loving dad, he can reimburse Mr. Bright for 10K USD, and then he can cover all the other respondents and complainants who will be out thousands of dollars as a consequence of his failure of duty.
Ms. Adams, if you cannot stay fed without selling your ethics, then get a bucket of black paint and a caravan and call yourself a roofer. Her website reads “…without boiling the peas, cross the ‘i’s and dot the ‘t’s…” Get a night job. Jason Bright is out 10K just because you’re unemployable. Where is your honor.
Make no mistake, these two little catsquirts who own SecretLab (Alaric Choo and Ian Yang) knew that they were violating federal law. Their trademark attorney is Curt Handley, Esq. Handley filed their Dec. 2016 app at the USPTO, and he has also filed a UDRP before! There is no question that Handley told them in 2016 that it was against the law to file a UDRP to get SECRETLAB.COM. And so Choo and Yang had to find some starving shyster willing to commit Reverse Domain Name Hijacking for them. Enter Tara Adams. “File this and it could turn into a lot more AU work for you, Tara.” Dirtbags.
Jason Bright’s SECRETLAB.COM site in 2005 checks out, and so does the company sale that necessitated the shift to SECRETLAB.COM. https://tech.mn/news/2015/03/23/entrepreneur-2-entrepreneur-jason-bright-on-the-mediabeacon-acquisition/. Does Bright know that Choo and Yang owe him 100K+ in federal court? They’ve traded in the US since 2017 and they’re making 15M a year on their cardboard gamer chairs. Maybe a dear reader attorney who knows how to make a straight dollar should apprise Bright of his rights.