Ramifacations of Reverse Domain Hijacking - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**Dominata** · 02-06-2003, 07:03 AM

What are the ramifacations of getting a reverse hijacking decision in a UDRP?
Would this be grounds to sue the complaintant or is it just a trophy for your virtual trophy case.

**chatcher** · 02-06-2003, 09:38 AM

It makes you feel twice as good as just winning alone!

I don't think it has any ramifications for the original case, but future respondents to complaints by the same complainant may cite the case as evidence of a pattern of bad faith.

It is remotely possible it could work in your favor in negotiating a sale to the complainant, but realistically if their complaint rises to the level of reverse domain name hijacking they are likely to be very difficult to deal with.

**pljones** · 02-06-2003, 09:44 AM

Perhaps John Berryhill can comment further on this issue....

**jberryhill** · 02-06-2003, 11:18 AM

The ACPA provides a cause of action against UDRP complainants who make false statements in their complaint. There is one currently pending federal suit of which I am aware, seeking damages against a party who was determined to be a reverse domain name hi-jacker in a UDRP proceeding.

See generally 15 USC 1114(2)(d)(iv) and (v)

02-06-2003, 07:03 AM	#1 (permalink)
Dominata Gold Lifetime Member Last Online: 07-28-2007 05:30 AM iTrader: (0) Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 26 DNF$: 177 Location: saint charles il	Ramifacations of Reverse Domain Hijacking What are the ramifacations of getting a reverse hijacking decision in a UDRP? Would this be grounds to sue the complaintant or is it just a trophy for your virtual trophy case.

02-06-2003, 09:38 AM	#2 (permalink)
chatcher Crazy Chuck Last Online: 02-10-2009 03:23 PM iTrader: (4) Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 325 DNF$: 3,432 Location: Raceland, Kentucky USA Country:	It makes you feel twice as good as just winning alone! I don't think it has any ramifications for the original case, but future respondents to complaints by the same complainant may cite the case as evidence of a pattern of bad faith. It is remotely possible it could work in your favor in negotiating a sale to the complainant, but realistically if their complaint rises to the level of reverse domain name hijacking they are likely to be very difficult to deal with. __________________ Chuck Hatcher Raceland, Kentucky

02-06-2003, 11:18 AM	#4 (permalink)
jberryhill Philadelphia Lawyer Last Online: 09-18-2009 01:17 AM iTrader: (1) Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 2,987 DNF$: 6,350	The ACPA provides a cause of action against UDRP complainants who make false statements in their complaint. There is one currently pending federal suit of which I am aware, seeking damages against a party who was determined to be a reverse domain name hi-jacker in a UDRP proceeding. See generally 15 USC 1114(2)(d)(iv) and (v) __________________ John Berryhill Ph.d., esq. John-AT-johnberryhill.com Please do not send private messages via dnforum.com, email me directly.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-06-2003, 09:44 AM	#3 (permalink)
pljones Gold Lifetime Member Last Online: 02-11-2004 01:21 PM iTrader: (0) Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 170 DNF$: 242	Perhaps John Berryhill can comment further on this issue....

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