A
Andrew Allemann
Guest
Reveel.com stays with mystery owner.
A UDRP panel has denied a cybersquatting complaint filed against the owners of Reveel.com. The owner of the domain didn’t register it in bad faith, as it was registered before the complainants had rights in the mark Reveel.
The case (pdf) is interesting for a couple of reasons.
First, the respondent claims that the complainant, Tip Vy Spots LLC Vy, doesn’t exist.
The respondent, which uses Dynadot whois privacy, declined to identify itself in the case. It said it shouldn’t have to identify itself to a non-existent entity that filed a frivolous case.
Second, panelist Richard Lyon found the complainant to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking. The other two panelists, Michael Albert and Barbara Solomon, didn’t consider reverse domain name hijacking. This was not because they disagree with Lyon, but because they argue the respondent must specifically ask for a finding of RDNH in order for it to be considered.
My reading of considering RDNH is completely different than these two panelists.
© DomainNameWire.com 2016. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) domainnamewire.com.
Latest domain news at DNW.com: Domain Name Wire.
The post Parties not revealed in Reveel.com UDRP appeared first on Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Views.
No related posts.
Continue reading...
A UDRP panel has denied a cybersquatting complaint filed against the owners of Reveel.com. The owner of the domain didn’t register it in bad faith, as it was registered before the complainants had rights in the mark Reveel.
The case (pdf) is interesting for a couple of reasons.
First, the respondent claims that the complainant, Tip Vy Spots LLC Vy, doesn’t exist.
The respondent, which uses Dynadot whois privacy, declined to identify itself in the case. It said it shouldn’t have to identify itself to a non-existent entity that filed a frivolous case.
Second, panelist Richard Lyon found the complainant to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking. The other two panelists, Michael Albert and Barbara Solomon, didn’t consider reverse domain name hijacking. This was not because they disagree with Lyon, but because they argue the respondent must specifically ask for a finding of RDNH in order for it to be considered.
My reading of considering RDNH is completely different than these two panelists.
© DomainNameWire.com 2016. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) domainnamewire.com.
Latest domain news at DNW.com: Domain Name Wire.
The post Parties not revealed in Reveel.com UDRP appeared first on Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Views.
No related posts.
Continue reading...
