Latest Reverse Hijacking Decision - Decal.com

[Dave Zan]

Congrats to both John B and Greg on this one:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0585.html

One thing that makes this sweet? John did it with one panelist.

 

[domaingenius]

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

 

[jberryhill]

If you liked that one, there is one coming in a couple of weeks that will blow your mind.

 

[gtycoon]

Sweet! Thats great!

 

[Theo]

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.

 

[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?

 

[domaingenius]

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

 

[Dave Zan]

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.

 

[fab]

Wow, way to go!

 

[draggar]

Good job! Defend the generics!

 

[SonnyBurnett]

Congrats guys!!

 

[HWW]

Fantastic result - congrats!

 

[jberryhill]

There has been a marked increase in RDNH.

Today alone:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1750.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/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0539.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.

 

[domaingenius]

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

 

[HuntingMoon]

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.

 

[flamewalker]

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.

 

[jberryhill]

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.

 

[domaingenius]

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

 

[flamewalker]

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

 

[Bill Roy]

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

Well done mate.