John Berryhill wins pig.com case today!

[namestrands]

I get that alot on my UDRPs, whereas the complainant argues that parking is bad faith, I will have to reference this case on my next one

 

[Dave Zan]

does anyone know if the complainant is responsible for the Respondents attorney fees?....just curious.

Nope.

Reverse Domain Hijackers Are The Scum Of The Earth!

Too bad this decision didn't ask for it.

Note this:

The Complainant now admits that the Complainant itself is responsible for the appearance of its own advertisement on the Respondent’s webpage.

I guess they felt they ain't getting their money's worth.

 

[POLiSH]

Very frecking impressive, I read the entire doc...

 

[DNWizardX9]

congrats!

The reverse hijacker is scum!

 

[WeBuyThe.Com]

Very impressed with Mr. Berryhill. Does anyone happen to know what he charges for such superb work? Sooner or later someone here is going to need him.

 

[Kevin]

“…the Complainant states that, on average, it spends $4M per year on unspecified promotion of its products.”

But they won’t buy the domain. That is pathetic.

I must admit, however, that I ALWAYS think of industrial absorbents when the word “pig” is mentioned. They do have a point there, now don’t they!

Ignorance and arrogance saliently manifest yet again in the UDRP arena.

Next up: A zoo will file a UDRP for Giraffe.com claiming “bad faith.”

Now, if you all would excuse me, I need to eat some bacon that I bought from a $2.74 PPC link that I clicked on a few days ago at Pig.com.

 

[Duckinla]

To bad their ad is no longer on the site. Would be fun to send the whole DNF community to Pig.com to click on the ad. I think a little click fraud would be justified in this case.

 

[B.King]

Congrats Adam , Great Job by Mr John

 

[Raider]

“…the Complainant states that, on average, it spends $4M per year on unspecified promotion of its products.”

But they won’t buy the domain. That is pathetic.

This is the nature of the industry were in, most refuse to pay for what they perceive is an outrageous amount of money for a domain name, so they try every under handed trick they can to get it. In this case, the guy was just being "cheap" If he's spending $4M per year on promotions, 500K is only 1/8 of that...it makes no sense.

What burns my butt is that we have to pay thousands to defend our domains from dirt bags like these! :upset:

 

[Adam DickerAdam Dicker is verified member.]

What burns my butt is that we have to pay thousands to defend our domains from dirt bags like these! :upset:

Agreed.

 

[acesfull]

What burns my butt is that we have to pay thousands to defend our domains from dirt bags like these! :upset:

Right! And as a result, end-users are going to pay A LOT MORE, when they go to buy an aftermarket domain. Reverse Domain Hijackers don't realize how bad they are Fuc*ing it up for everyone else, including themselves.

 

[fab]

I get that alot on my UDRPs, whereas the complainant argues that parking is bad faith, I will have to reference this case on my next one

If you read the document well. Parking is considered bad faith, when it's used to manipulate a trademark, not when it's moneterizes generic terms; moreover their was a claim that the domain would be used for a site similar to elephants.

 

[D'same]

One of the most asinine legal bruhaha I have seen in a long time.....PIG and OIL
Congratulations to the Respondent and Counsel...
This is a lesson to get expert help.....

 

[fab]

One of the most asinine legal bruhaha I have seen in a long time.....PIG and OIL
Congratulations to the Respondent and Counsel...
This is a lesson to get expert help.....

What bothers me with cases like this, is that you need 'professional help', as the saying goes "Guilty until you get a good lawyer."

 

[DNQuest.com]

I get that alot on my UDRPs, whereas the complainant argues that parking is bad faith, I will have to reference this case on my next one

Don't get carried away... it was not said that parking IS a bona fide offering. Since the TM is from a generic word, they panel did not feel that bad faith was substantiated since the links had nothing to do with with the TM with the exception f the PPC which appears they paid for. So in this case, they felt he did not register the domain because of the TM holder. But it is more widely help that parking IS NOT a bona fide offering of services.

Each case is based n its own basis.

 

[hugegrowth]

pig.com was originally registered in 2000? would have thought a name like that would have been regged in the mid-90's.

 

[MobileDesigner]

I wished that you could have helped me on my 3-letter generic .mobi. i lost it..:sigh2:

But congratulations on your win.

 

[MediaHound]

pig.com was originally registered in 2000? would have thought a name like that would have been regged in the mid-90's.

dropped
see here
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pig.com

Back then when names dropped, they really "dropped", and (usually) were not passed along to partners that retained the initial reg date.

 

[namestrands]

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/110849.htm

looks like this one wasnt so lucky

 

[Adam DickerAdam Dicker is verified member.]

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/110849.htm

looks like this one wasnt so lucky

I don't think he hired a lawyer, but an interesting read, thanks NS.

-=DCG=-