Valuate Domain Names
DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars
HomeRegisterMembershipsGetting StartedDomain Tools Domain EbooksSEO Software Domain Resellers Advertise

Go Back   DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars > Domain News, Beginners Guides and Legal Stuff! > Domain Name Legal Issues
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-25-2008, 09:57 PM   #1 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
No Avatar
 
Name: Dave Zan
Last Online: 11-12-2009 09:55 PM
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,663
DNF$: 0
Location: Manila


Latest Reverse Hijacking Decision - Decal.com

Congrats to both John B and Greg on this one:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-0585.html

One thing that makes this sweet? John did it with one panelist.
__________________
Vidi, Vici, Veni!
Dave Zan is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Ads
Old 06-26-2008, 11:49 AM   #2 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
 
domaingenius's Avatar
 
Last Online: Yesterday 11:07 AM
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,027
DNF$: 148
Location: United Kingdom
Country:


Well lets hope John does'nt turn "gamekeeper" !. As for Mr Barker, congrats to him for making such a Just decision. No doubt this will be referred to in many future UDRP's.

DG
domaingenius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2008, 10:53 PM   #3 (permalink)
Philadelphia Lawyer
 
jberryhill's Avatar
 
Last Online: 09-18-2009 01:17 AM
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,987
DNF$: 6,350

Send a message via ICQ to jberryhill

If you liked that one, there is one coming in a couple of weeks that will blow your mind.
__________________
John Berryhill Ph.d., esq.
John-AT-johnberryhill.com
Please do not send private messages via dnforum.com, email me directly.
jberryhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 12:39 AM   #4 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
No Avatar
 
Last Online: 09-27-2009 03:22 PM
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 58
DNF$: 10
Location: Pittsburgh


Sweet!

Sweet! Thats great!
__________________
Poker Affiliate Blog
Learn how to make money promoting poker sites.
gtycoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 01:00 AM   #5 (permalink)
Bloody lovely
 
Acro's Avatar
 
Last Online: Yesterday 02:57 AM
iTrader: (394)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,904
DNF$: 4,079
Location: USA
Country:




Indeed, a very just panelist. I particularly liked the explanations behind each element of the decision. I have decalstudio dot com and that's exactly what appears on the parked page: stickers.
__________________

DomainGang.com - Domainers' Most Awesome News Source
Acroplex - Web & Graphics
Acro.net - My Blog
My Countdown Counting down to: Snapnames rebate hitting my mailbox
77 days 20 hours 30 minutes
Acro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 01:34 AM   #6 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
 
Fatbat's Avatar
 
Last Online: 11-20-2009 09:07 PM
iTrader: (0)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 479
DNF$: 600
Location: Spain
Country:

Send a message via MSN to Fatbat

There is some justice after all.

Not to derail this post but I wonder what ever happened to the party that owned knot.com originally? I never heard if they fought beyond the original arbitration?
Fatbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 02:23 AM   #7 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
 
domaingenius's Avatar
 
Last Online: Yesterday 11:07 AM
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,027
DNF$: 148
Location: United Kingdom
Country:


Quote:
Originally Posted by jberryhill View Post
If you liked that one, there is one coming in a couple of weeks that will blow your mind.
Well look forward to seeing that then.

DG
domaingenius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 02:27 AM   #8 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
No Avatar
 
Name: Dave Zan
Last Online: 11-12-2009 09:55 PM
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,663
DNF$: 0
Location: Manila


Quote:
Originally Posted by jberryhill View Post
If you liked that one, there is one coming in a couple of weeks that will blow your mind.
My mind's blown already just being curious of that.
__________________
Vidi, Vici, Veni!
Dave Zan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 03:32 AM   #9 (permalink)
fab
 
fab's Avatar
 
Last Online: Yesterday 04:58 PM
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,454
DNF$: 414
Location: Elad
Country:

Send a message via MSN to fab

Wow, way to go!
fab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 07:29 AM   #10 (permalink)
The Evil Mod
 
draggar's Avatar
 
Name: Ed
Last Online: Today 12:10 AM
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,367
DNF$: 183
Location: South Florida
Country:

Send a message via ICQ to draggar Send a message via AIM to draggar

Good job! Defend the generics!
draggar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 08:32 AM   #11 (permalink)
Account Terminated
No Avatar
 
Last Online: 07-19-2008 03:18 AM
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 502
DNF$: 2,247
Location: Italy
Country:

Send a message via MSN to SonnyBurnett

Congrats guys!!
SonnyBurnett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 09:01 AM   #12 (permalink)
HWW
Platinum Lifetime Member
No Avatar
 
Last Online: Yesterday 05:20 AM
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 97
DNF$: 1,320
Location: Australia


Fantastic result - congrats!
HWW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 09:09 AM   #13 (permalink)
Philadelphia Lawyer
 
jberryhill's Avatar
 
Last Online: 09-18-2009 01:17 AM
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,987
DNF$: 6,350

Send a message via ICQ to jberryhill

There has been a marked increase in RDNH.

Today alone:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2007-1750.html

In circumstances where the Complainant obviously could not point to conflicting competitive advertising or other indication of bad faith use and where the Disputed Domain Name was used by a small number of users in the context of a bona fide email service, there was no reasonable chance of the Complaint succeeding. For these reasons the majority of the Panel considers that this was indeed an abusive proceeding contrary to Rule 15 (e) of the Rules.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-0539.html

Taken as a whole, the Complaint may accurately be summarized as Complainant’s assertion that merely because of its registered trademarks in common and descriptive phrases it is entitled to transfer of any domain name incorporating that phrase for a similar business, or that because of its priority of use of a common and descriptive phrase for a particular business, Complainant is somehow more entitled to the disputed domain name than Respondent. Neither of these notions finds any support in the language of the Policy or Policy precedent. Such an approach, coupled with (a) statements in the text of the Complaint acknowledging several years’ use by Respondent of the disputed domain name for a legitimate business, (b) no proof of anything beyond existence of trademarks and cease-and-desist letters, and (c) seemingly ignoring a Consensus View of Policy precedent necessary to its case, approaches the bad faith justifying a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
__________________
John Berryhill Ph.d., esq.
John-AT-johnberryhill.com
Please do not send private messages via dnforum.com, email me directly.
jberryhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 01:54 PM   #14 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
 
domaingenius's Avatar
 
Last Online: Yesterday 11:07 AM
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,027
DNF$: 148
Location: United Kingdom
Country:


Just out of interest John,and I understand you may not wish to answer this, roughly what would it cost to defend against a UDRP ?. I know like most lawyers you will say "depends on the case ,how longs a piece of string" ,but I we talking US$2,500 or US$25,000 "ish" ?.

DG
domaingenius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 05:15 PM   #15 (permalink)
 
HuntingMoon's Avatar
 
Name: Evan
Last Online: 11-13-2009 09:02 PM
iTrader: (27)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,220
DNF$: 3,286
Location: Bay Area
Country:


that seems like a rational decision. pricewaterhouse should have advised their client that this was an unwinnable action, not that i would expect them to.
__________________
HuntingMoon PDDW.COM_Essociate
Join Our Mailer!__ Find Drops
HuntingMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 06:16 PM   #16 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
No Avatar
 
Last Online: 11-05-2008 09:14 PM
iTrader: (0)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 160
DNF$: 128
Location: CA, USA


Quote:
Originally Posted by domaingenius View Post
Just out of interest John,and I understand you may not wish to answer this, roughly what would it cost to defend against a UDRP ?. I know like most lawyers you will say "depends on the case ,how longs a piece of string" ,but I we talking US$2,500 or US$25,000 "ish" ?.

DG
Obviously not speaking on any lawyers behalf, but I know some will charge ~$5k to do a UDRP, upwards to $25k depending on the lawyer... to defend against I imagine you might find a lawyer to help you defend pro bono, but I would imagine it could be a similar range or less.
flamewalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 12:59 AM   #17 (permalink)
Philadelphia Lawyer
 
jberryhill's Avatar
 
Last Online: 09-18-2009 01:17 AM
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,987
DNF$: 6,350

Send a message via ICQ to jberryhill

Quote:
Just out of interest John,and I understand you may not wish to answer this, roughly what would it cost to defend against a UDRP ?. I know like most lawyers you will say "depends on the case ,how longs a piece of string" ,but I we talking US$2,500 or US$25,000 "ish" ?
Given that it does depend on the case, the typical range has been from $4K to $7K.

Some fact patterns are so repetitive, especially if it is a "dictionary word PPC case" with no other interesting facts, that responding to them is fairly mechanical.

I spent a lot of extra and unbilled time on decal.com because it was such a dead-bang simple factual situation, and the claim was so unbelievably stupid, that after getting over the obvious, the bulk of the response was a discussion of how boneheaded UDRP decisions have been encouraging frivolous complaints.

On the "do I need a lawyer to respond to a UDRP" question that comes up from time to time, the complaint in this case was so whacky that it would have been a challenge to lose. The word is "decal", and the complainant's own exhibit showed the domain was being used to advertise decals. Given that evidence, it was tempting to respond with "So?"

However, if the domain is valuable, it's not a good idea to expect that the Panel is going to help you out. Everybody involved in the process completely understands that the UDRP is a system in which competitive dispute resoluton providers are attempting to attract complainants. If a dispute resolution provider is seen as "respondent friendly", then they are not going to be in the UDRP business for long.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the panelists themselves are paid what amounts to a token fee, given what they are expected to do. So they aren't exactly thrilled to have to apply their considerable education and expertise to something as stupid as the claim in this case.
__________________
John Berryhill Ph.d., esq.
John-AT-johnberryhill.com
Please do not send private messages via dnforum.com, email me directly.
jberryhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 06:02 AM   #18 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
 
domaingenius's Avatar
 
Last Online: Yesterday 11:07 AM
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,027
DNF$: 148
Location: United Kingdom
Country:


Quote:
Originally Posted by jberryhill View Post
Given that it does depend on the case, the typical range has been from $4K to $7K.

Some fact patterns are so repetitive, especially if it is a "dictionary word PPC case" with no other interesting facts, that responding to them is fairly mechanical.

I spent a lot of extra and unbilled time on decal.com because it was such a dead-bang simple factual situation, and the claim was so unbelievably stupid, that after getting over the obvious, the bulk of the response was a discussion of how boneheaded UDRP decisions have been encouraging frivolous complaints.

On the "do I need a lawyer to respond to a UDRP" question that comes up from time to time, the complaint in this case was so whacky that it would have been a challenge to lose. The word is "decal", and the complainant's own exhibit showed the domain was being used to advertise decals. Given that evidence, it was tempting to respond with "So?"

However, if the domain is valuable, it's not a good idea to expect that the Panel is going to help you out. Everybody involved in the process completely understands that the UDRP is a system in which competitive dispute resoluton providers are attempting to attract complainants. If a dispute resolution provider is seen as "respondent friendly", then they are not going to be in the UDRP business for long.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the panelists themselves are paid what amounts to a token fee, given what they are expected to do. So they aren't exactly thrilled to have to apply their considerable education and expertise to something as stupid as the claim in this case.

Thanks for the info. Well when I get my next UDRP served I will be in touch.

DG
domaingenius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 01:56 PM   #19 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
No Avatar
 
Last Online: 11-05-2008 09:14 PM
iTrader: (0)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 160
DNF$: 128
Location: CA, USA


When? ... are you expecting to get one soon?
flamewalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 04:10 PM   #20 (permalink)
 
BILLBO's Avatar
 
Last Online: 11-16-2009 05:02 AM
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,330
DNF$: 459
Location: England
Country:


John, just to add my voice to the chorus of 'congratulations'.

Well done mate.
BILLBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:28 AM.
Copyright @2001-2009 DNForum.com