Best. UDRP Allegation. Ever.

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

It's been mentioned before that DNForum threads are sometimes trotted out in UDRP complaints as evidence of one thing or another.

Last night, I responded to one of the most spectacularly incompetent UDRP complaints I have ever seen. They admit in the complaint that the domain name was registered years prior to any use of the mark, but they actually argue that the UDRP does not require a domain name to have been registered in bad faith.

But, here it is, verbatim from the Complaint:

"Furthermore, on information and belief, Respondent is a 'platinum lifetime member' of 'dnforum.com,' a website dedicated to the buying and selling of domain names."

Holy cow!

I mean, sure, if he was a "gold member", then he might not be a cybersquatter...

But those "platinum members", well, those people are scum, pure and simple.

 

[whitebark]

It's been mentioned before that DNForum threads are sometimes trotted out in UDRP complaints as evidence of one thing or another.

Last night, I responded to one of the most spectacularly incompetent UDRP complaints I have ever seen. They admit in the complaint that the domain name was registered years prior to any use of the mark, but they actually argue that the UDRP does not require a domain name to have been registered in bad faith.

But, here it is, verbatim from the Complaint:

"Furthermore, on information and belief, Respondent is a 'platinum lifetime member' of 'dnforum.com,' a website dedicated to the buying and selling of domain names."

Holy cow!

I mean, sure, if he was a "gold member", then he might not be a cybersquatter...

But those "platinum members", well, those people are scum, pure and simple.

Then by extension (pun intended) exclusive members must be evil cybersquatter extraordinaires!

 

[cursal]

Now that's some pretty funny commentary John

Scum, out with the lot of ya.

 

[draggar]

John always has great stories. Please please PLEASE link the case when all is wrapped up and completed. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!

Then by extension (pun intended) exclusive members must be evil cybersquatter extraordinaires!

And the forum management must be the scum of the Earth!:uhoh::uhoh::smilewinkgrin::uhoh::uhoh:

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

exclusive members must be evil cybersquatter extraordinaires!

Oh, by that time, they are criminals.

Mods are spawn of some sort of universal evil force.

Please please PLEASE link the case when all is wrapped up and completed.

Given the other problems with the complaint, I doubt that allegation will make it to the decision. It's quite a "crash and burn" attempt, but I do appreciate someone with the moxie to argue:

"While it is true that Respondent secured the domain name prior to Complainant's established trademark rights, the Policy does not expressly require that a complainant demonstrate that it had rights to a trademark or service mark prior to the respondent's registration of the domain name."

Ummmm.... this is such a common question that WIPO has it posted on their UDRP FAQ.

And, in today's inbox....

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1238992.htm

Because Respondent’s rights in the <peaches.com> domain name predate Complainant’s rights in the PEACHES mark derived through its trademark registration of the mark, the Panel finds that Respondent cannot have registered the <peaches.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Open Sys. Computing AS v. degli Alessandri, D2000-1393 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding no bad faith where the respondent registered the domain name in question before application and commencement of use of the trademark by the complainant); see also Ode v. Intership Ltd., D2001-0074 (WIPO May 1, 2001) (“[W]e are of the unanimous view that the trademark must predate the domain name.”).

You gotta watch out for those psychic cybersquatters who know, years in advance, whether someone is going to have a trademark.

They probably make deals with the Devil.... and sign up at DNForum!

 

[south]

Holy cow!

I mean, sure, if he was a "gold member", then he might not be a cybersquatter...

But those "platinum members", well, those people are scum, pure and simple.

Amazing.

Wait! Can I downgrade?

 

[INVIGOR]

That is truly some funny, funny stuff!

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

I guess I should trot this allegation out for a test ride the next time it is appropriate:

"The Complainant's counsel is a member of the International Trademark Association (INTA) which includes among its members numerous attorneys who have been found to have engaged in Reverse Domain Hi-Jacking."

....and see how well that works.

 

[draggar]

And the respondent didn't accuse them of reverse-hijacking? How sad.

I guess I should trot this allegation out for a test ride the next time it is appropriate:

"The Complainant's counsel is a member of the International Trademark Association (INTA) which includes among its members numerous attorneys who have been found to have engaged in Reverse Domain Hi-Jacking."

....and see how well that works.

Thanx, John. I just spit my water out all over my keyboard and monitor - expect a bill. :lol:

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

The funny part, though, is that the Complainant's attorneys in the case did get warned about RDNH before - and on the same issue of bad chronology.

 

[Sonny Banks]

Absurd story.
I need to downgrade too

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

And the respondent didn't accuse them of reverse-hijacking?

A common fallacy is to believe that a UDRP decision is representative of everything that was alleged in the proceeding.

It's part of the reason why a lot of folks don't understand some of the spectacularly bad UDRP decisions. The panel gets to determine how they present, in the decision, the facts and arguments raised by the parties.

 

[draggar]

Sound like censorship to me...

 

[stewie]

thx for sharing :yo:

 

[Dave Zan]

"The Complainant's counsel is a member of the International Trademark Association (INTA) which includes among its members numerous attorneys who have been found to have engaged in Reverse Domain Hi-Jacking."

Just curious, John. What does INTA do if any of its members is found...hmm...
naughty?

And I'm scum while exclusive members are criminals? Damn, time to upgrade to
join the club!

 

[fab]

"Furthermore, on information and belief, Respondent is a 'platinum lifetime member' of 'dnforum.com,' a website dedicated to the buying and selling of domain names."

ROFL. You almost killed me with that.

 

[Focus]

:lol: I love this business!

 

[domaingenius]

I wonder how many complainants lawyer frequent DNforum simply to try and
gain some evidence against the Respondent, without us even knowing about it ?.
Would be easy to identify the Respondent from posts they make with domain
names mentioned and then whois them.

DG

 

[stuff]

I wonder how many complainants lawyer frequent DNforum simply to try and
gain some evidence against the Respondent, without us even knowing about it ?.
Would be easy to identify the Respondent from posts they make with domain
names mentioned and then whois them.

DG

they do it, so best would be to delete all your sales threads etc..

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

I wonder how many complainants lawyer frequent DNforum simply to try and
gain some evidence against the Respondent, without us even knowing about it ?.
Would be easy to identify the Respondent from posts they make with domain
names mentioned and then whois them.

DG

Plenty, and yes.

The funny thing is that, in this complaint as well as in several others I've seen, they list a bunch of generic words.

There are still actually attorneys out there which believe if they can show that someone has ever sold a domain name, then they are a cybersquatter.

Just curious, John. What does INTA do if any of its members is found...hmm...
naughty?

Make them an officer.

That's only if they are naughty.

If they are naughty and stupid, they get a position with CADNA.