Lawyer thinks it’s no biggie that a panel found that he filed a misleading UDRP complaint.

A lawyer who filed a RDNH case says, “…RDNH label from the UDRP has no weight anywhere. Might as well stick thumb in mouth and cry…”
Yesterday, I wrote a story encouraging people to hire a domain name attorney when faced with a domain dispute of some kind. One person took exception to this suggestion: a lawyer who recently filed a reverse domain name hijacking case.
Nathan Brown, attorney at Brown Patent Law, filed a UDRP against the domain name ITDC.com, which is owned by Internet Tool & Die Company. The Complainant was found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking for a number of reasons. A critical one is that the complaint said the domain registrant didn’t exist at the address it listed, even though the Complainant knew the domain owner was a subsidiary of a business that did exist at that address.
In response to the suggestion that you hire a specialist (the story was unrelated to the ITDC.com decision), Brown tweeted:
So you win the domain but then get hammered in Federal Court; and eventually lose everything? #bigpicture
Domain disputes are such a very small part of the equation; risking your entire business on a “specialist” in domain disputes is a fool’s game. https://t.co/QXrqTI2Mwk
— Brown Patent Law (@PatentlyCurious) March 31, 2021
That didn’t make much sense to me. I asked him to explain. To which he responded:
I see only two purposes of the UDRP, and that is to force early discovery on the other side or to obtain an optimal jurisdiction after the decision. https://t.co/H2zAsloZTq
— Brown Patent Law (@PatentlyCurious) April 1, 2021
I’m not sure what the optimal jurisdiction argument is. You can file a lawsuit anywhere you have jurisdiction. If you file a UDRP, you’re also submitting yourself to the jurisdiction of either the domain registrar’s location or the domain owner’s location. In this case, the Complainant and its lawyer are in Arizona. Neither the registrar (Enom) or the Respondent are located there.
If you have a good case then UDRP is a great way to get the domain back fast and cheap. If you have a bad case then you’ll get hit with reverse domain name hijacking
— DomainNameWire.com (@DomainNameWire) April 1, 2021
I wish it was that simple. Lastly, RDNH label from the UDRP has no weight anywhere. Might as well stick thumb in mouth and cry. Equal weight.
— Brown Patent Law (@PatentlyCurious) April 1, 2021
Well, he has a point there. There’s no fine for RDNH in a UDRP. But even if a court doesn’t have to give deference to a UDRP decision that showed that the Complainant misled the tribunal and that it’s not a case of cybersquatting, I have to think those make for good opening arguments against any lawsuit brought against the domain. Oh, and if found to have tried reverse domain name hijacking in court, there can be some stiff costs associated with that.
I can’t find out much about Brown’s legal practice. The website in his twitter bio leads to a 404 error. He has a Facebook page that has a few posts from several years ago. I found one other UDRP he filed in 2018.