LH.com lost due to reverse hijacking

**tristanperry** · 04-29-2008, 04:31 PM

A scandalous decision has once again been reached by the so called wipo arbitration panel.

The disputed name is LH.com

The name is currently still owned by ‘elequa’. Well known in the domain industry and owns a vast portfolio of short acronym domains. Including ‘i.net’ !

A gem dating back to 1995. It is Lufthansa who have effectively hijacked this name now. Reverse hijacking (or daylight robbery) is on the increase as firms desperate to own a unique short web address try and take via court action from legitimate owners.

Let’s make no mistake, cyber-squatting is when people register something like BurgerKing.com and feed off someone’s trademark. Or register typos.

A pure generic acronym like LH is common to many firms across the world. There have been rumours circulating that wipo are not entirely ‘clean’ themselves and we have read many rumours recently of shenanigans going on with biased panels.

I think we can clearly see this again with this ruling . Simply beyond belief and i for one believe the panelists have been influenced.

Thank God these idiots, named and shamed below, are only taking decisions based on property, imagine if there were fools like this deciding on peoples freedom? Unfortunately there are.

Scandal: Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Chair David Tatham, Panelist

Cool, so if you own a really valuable domain in good faith, it can be stolen from you. Great news..

**Poker** · 04-29-2008, 04:36 PM

The decision in your link is for beefeaters.net not LH.com and not Elequa.
well the WIPO link you had up anyway

**DomainsInc** · 04-29-2008, 04:37 PM

The problem is being a domainer is viewed as bad faith. That has to change.

**tristanperry** · 04-29-2008, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Poker

The decision in your link is for beefeaters.net not LH.com and not Elequa.
well the WIPO link you had up anyway

Yep, sorry about that

I can't find the LH.com WIPO link now, although I'll edit it if/when I find it.

**Poker** · 04-29-2008, 04:44 PM

trying to find it for you on wipo.int, can't find it either...

**ksinclair** · 04-29-2008, 06:44 PM

Was LH.com a ppc sceen? Did it have any links to Luftansa trademarks?

Also, if LH.com was blatantly stolen can't the guy losing it to go court
for an appeal?

**tristanperry** · 04-30-2008, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by ksinclair

Was LH.com a ppc sceen? Did it have any links to Luftansa trademarks?

It apparently was parked, although it intentionally had ads on it that had nothing to do with Luftansa TMs (i.e. nothing to do with flying).

**socalboy** · 04-30-2008, 01:46 AM

Thanks for the post Tristan. Fascinating decision. Major players on both sides. If a 2 letter .com isn't generic, what is? I guess the lesson to be learned here is...use it or lose it.

**Poker** · 04-30-2008, 02:05 AM

I'd wait to read the decision

**socalboy** · 04-30-2008, 02:16 AM

Read it. The decision, dated April 17, 2008, is publicly available.

**Poker** · 04-30-2008, 02:19 AM

was looking in the wrong place...here it is:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ns/1153492.htm

I agree with the dissenting opinion.

**socalboy** · 04-30-2008, 02:37 AM

I believe another lesson to be learned from this case is that 3 "panelists"/judges are too few for a reasoned, fair decision. Too much is at stake these days. I think there needs to be a right of appeal, if nowhere else than through the U.S. federal court system. Significant structural changes need to be addressed at ICANN. Are "Professor" David E. Sorkin or "Mr." David Tatham even lawyers? I think these domain issues should be taken out of binding arbitration.

I might add that both parties were represented by competent (expensive) counsel, Lufthansa by McDermott, a major U.S. law firm, and FMA by Kenyon, a leading IP firm.

**malmar2** · 04-30-2008, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by socalboy

I might add that both parties were represented by competent (expensive) counsel, Lufthansa by McDermott, a major U.S. law firm, and FMA by Kenyon, a leading IP firm.

The "outside, if you think you're hard enough" response by Kenyon to the original c&d from Lufthansa didn't help.

Court documents for FMA v Lufthansa, see exhibits-Pt1, exhibit C

Unless FMA/Kenyon meant to provoke this udrp and then fight for the name back in court. If the gamble works they will scare off any future predators.

**draggar** · 04-30-2008, 04:52 AM

The MySpace.co.uk ruling was overturned, there is a (very small) glimmer of hope out there.

**tristanperry** · 04-30-2008, 04:59 AM

The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark and is not generic.

The panelists must be really stupid. Not generic? Bah.

**msl** · 04-30-2008, 05:26 AM

superb post tristan... more of these are needed to inform big buyers of what might happen if you spend $5,000,000 at sedo and then get f*cked over!

poor choice of words used to hijack another early registration... if there is not an instant appeal for this one then we might as all go back to selling ice out of a bucket of water... if memories and actions count as "evidence" then maybe someone should contact network solutions for a recovery of previous owner details and get the "john doe" details who had this 2 years before it was sold in 94 to lighthouse... if this is the choice of panelists, who have been online for 6 years... why not use people that KNOW what went on 10 years+ ago... if this is not generic and the case stands, then watch out for loads more "bluechip" "corporate" bullshit claims... so glad we sold pepsimax without a fight.... good luck to Future Media and if it costs you $500k of the $1,000,000 you could have been offered... then it is worth it... after all it was only $259 bucks to start!

maybe a support thread could be started to "help" the Domainers cause... not financially but just like paypalsucks.com put paypal in their place in the early 00's

we have 3 generic "hijack" support cases for clients and found the best way is to make it public... e.g www.skippy.com (nearly lost it!)

**socalboy** · 04-30-2008, 06:46 AM

MalMar2, I will look at that.

If Kenyon did something wrong, then FMA (elequa/Ahmed) has a cause of action against Kenyon for malpractice.

But from the names of the firms, I think it was competently briefed.

The problem is with the adjudicators, and how they are appointed.

SoCalBoy

**malmar2** · 04-30-2008, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by socalboy

If Kenyon did something wrong, then FMA (elequa/Ahmed) has a cause of action against Kenyon for malpractice.

But from the names of the firms, I think it was competently briefed.

That's what makes the c&d reply so strange at first glance. Given that Kenyon know what they are about, there is no way they expected Lufthansa to back off with that letter.

But if you read the udrp decision you can see FMA had done enough to hang themselves if the Panelists wanted to. (PPC travel related ads, "$1m offers received", offering to rent out the name, poor track record).

Bear in mind FMA have a couple of udrp defeats already and as a consequence all their 2/3 letter acronyms are at greater risk.

Then imagine the conversation between FMA and Kenyon and you can easily see they needed a strategy. Namely provoke a udrp with a big, but not clear cut TM holder and immediately file suit.

If FMA win the lawsuit they come out looking like the skin head with tattos on his forehead, i.e. no one will pick a fight with them.

However, if none of the above is close then I would say Kenyon shafted their client.

**Poker** · 04-30-2008, 06:28 PM

Good points malmar.

**brianluedke** · 04-30-2008, 08:32 PM

When presented with an offer to buy your domain name, always respond that you cannot enter into any discussion or negotiation until the offering party formally states that they recognize your legal possession of the domain name.

This is particularly true in the case of a business that has an (even remotely) similar name. In this case, you had better involve a lawyer experienced in these matters before you even respond.