Latest Reverse Hijacking Decision - Decal.com - Page 2 - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**domaingenius** · 07-03-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamewalker

When? ... are you expecting to get one soon?

Yes ,in a word.

DG

Two have been threatened.

DG

**flamewalker** · 07-03-2008, 06:08 PM

I see... good luck with them (if either of them are not idle threats).

**randomo** · 07-03-2008, 06:20 PM

Let's be glad there are white-hat lawyers in the world, to protect the virtuous from the greedy.

(Makes me wish I'd stayed in law school for more than a week and a half ....)

**jberryhill** · 07-03-2008, 07:33 PM

Quote:

When? ... are you expecting to get one soon?

It could be a few weeks, but yes. The facts are even more egregious than decal.com, if you can imagine. Compounding the loony claim in the first place is that they "forgot" that they corresponded in 2002 with the legal entity which has held and used the domain name since 1995. Then, more recently, a director of the complainant company used a personal email address to claim he was starting a sports team and wanted to know how much the domain name would cost. They actually used the answer to claim the respondent was trying to sell the domain name to the complainant.

That's not just dishonest, it happens to be a federal crime (wire fraud 18 USC 1343). Accordingly, we filed a report with the FBI and included the FBI report as an exhibit to the response. Beyond RDNH, we are seeking to have the complainant imprisoned.

**BILLBO** · 07-03-2008, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jberryhill

It could be a few weeks, but yes. The facts are even more egregious than decal.com, if you can imagine. Compounding the loony claim in the first place is that they "forgot" that they corresponded in 2002 with the legal entity which has held and used the domain name since 1995. Then, more recently, a director of the complainant company used a personal email address to claim he was starting a sports team and wanted to know how much the domain name would cost. They actually used the answer to claim the respondent was trying to sell the domain name to the complainant.

That's not just dishonest, it happens to be a federal crime (wire fraud 18 USC 1343). Accordingly, we filed a report with the FBI and included the FBI report as an exhibit to the response. Beyond RDNH, we are seeking to have the complainant imprisoned.

Now that about having the complainant imprisoned just made me burst out laughing!

**flamewalker** · 07-03-2008, 09:27 PM

That comment was actually to domaingenius... but wow...

Committing a federal offense in order to try to obtain a domain name is about as bad as it gets I guess...Good luck on getting that s.o.b. jailed... serves him right!

**NetworkMsia** · 07-07-2008, 10:59 AM

good job John =)

**draggar** · 07-07-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jberryhill

That's not just dishonest, it happens to be a federal crime (wire fraud 18 USC 1343). Accordingly, we filed a report with the FBI and included the FBI report as an exhibit to the response. Beyond RDNH, we are seeking to have the complainant imprisoned.

I wonder if this would have an affect on this whole reverse-hijacking trend? Would people be more careful about trying to win a case (and acquire the domain) though deceptive practices?

**flamewalker** · 07-07-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by draggar

I wonder if this would have an affect on this whole reverse-hijacking trend? Would people be more careful about trying to win a case (and acquire the domain) though deceptive practices?

One can only hope... If reverse hijackers started getting put in jail, they would have to think twice. I can see if someone makes a honest, stupid mistake thinking they have rights to a name they don't, but when they blatantly and viciously go after a domain name using lies and deception... well they deserve to be put in jail to cool their heels for a while.

**domaingenius** · 07-07-2008, 05:39 PM

One thing I have never understood in UDRP's is the matter of costs. Does the Respondent
get costs back if he fights of the complaint ?.

DG

**flamewalker** · 07-07-2008, 08:44 PM

No, not from UDRP. He would have to sue in court for damages I believe.

**jberryhill** · 07-08-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Does the Respondent get costs back if he fights of the complaint ?

No, and the prevailing complainant does not receive a monetary award either.

There is no mechanism for enforcing payment from either side.

**domaingenius** · 07-08-2008, 10:42 AM

OK so basically anyone could take a very weak claim and cause the Respondent to
incur thousands of $ in costs and not nget any of that back. Hardly a fair system.

DG

**flamewalker** · 07-08-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by domaingenius

OK so basically anyone could take a very weak claim and cause the Respondent to
incur thousands of $ in costs and not nget any of that back. Hardly a fair system.

DG

Yes and no... To hire a lawyer to do it will cost usually a minimum of $5k... thats a lot just to jerk around another person...both sides will pay a lot, not just the respondent.

**Electric-Shadow** · 07-08-2008, 01:35 PM

It's also stupid to do if the domain won't be worth the costs.

This reverse hijacking is rather new to me but I would certainly consider it to be fraud and whoever obtains domain names in this manner should be jailed, claiming rights to domains they don't have rights to? wouldn't that also be lying to the court? if you know what I mean, which is also a criminal offence.

**flamewalker** · 07-08-2008, 02:19 PM

UDRP/WIPO etc are not a court... so claiming rights isn't really lying to a court. As John pointed out, it can sometimes be wire fraud though.

**jberryhill** · 07-08-2008, 04:20 PM

...and mail fraud.

Quote:

OK so basically anyone could take a very weak claim and cause the Respondent to
incur thousands of $ in costs and not nget any of that back. Hardly a fair system.

If you want to talk about "fair", then you're going to have to get into how much the complainant should be paid if it prevails.

Can of worms.

**Electric-Shadow** · 07-08-2008, 04:20 PM

Oh right I didn't realise, but yes it is still a fraud and probably the lowest any domainer could go, it's a real shame and is probably costing the industry money.

**flamewalker** · 07-08-2008, 04:49 PM

IMHO the only true fair compensation that could be easily figured out, would be the legal costs of the udrp. "Damages" would then have to be acquired through a court, which then would cost more money... in fact forget damages (except for the most egregious cases - ie someone nabs walmart.com)... just award legal fees to complainant. Not that it would be easy to collect though...

The more I think about it the more 'can of worms'y it gets lol...

**jberryhill** · 07-09-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

The more I think about it the more 'can of worms'y it gets lol...

It comes up in UDRP policy discussions from time to time, and is shot down just as often. If people want to collect monetary damages on either side, they can go to court.