-
Welcome to DNForum.com™ - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars
If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
Ramifacations of Reverse Domain Hijacking
- Thread starter Dominata
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 320
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
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.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,589
- Reaction score
- 24
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)
See generally 15 USC 1114(2)(d)(iv) and (v)
- Status
Similar threads
