Respondent Defaults, but Panel Finds Reverse Hijacking Anyway

dtobias · Jan 1, 2003

I just posted this to ICANNWatch, but it may be of interest to people on this forum too:

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=1064&mode=thread&order=1

A British government agency tried to pry a .com domain loose from an American company, which inexplicably failed to respond to the UDRP case (even though they were actively using the domain for a legitimate business), but the panelist still found for the respondent and even found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

At least in this case Her Majesty the Queen didn't get involved.

CoolHost.com · Jan 1, 2003

" ... but the panelist still found for the respondent and even found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking."

Wow! Thanks, Dan! Perhaps the best course of action now is to simply ignore the initial UDRP notification!? (Just kidding). Good read. Have a great day!

DomainPairs · Jan 1, 2003

The Queen was involved in the NZ case because she is the nominal head of the Commonwealth.

The DVLA action would have been brought by our treasonous government, who I beleive are trying to steal the Queens money and remove her from politics.

It is unfortunate that they brought this action which is an embarrassement to the Uk. They should have learnt their lesson over the www.fsa.co.uk action brought by the financial services authority.

David_Hellam · Jan 2, 2003

Don't forget the fiasco over failing to re-register my-ila.com too - story at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1680519.stm

But I can think of an even bigger US-based failure to re-register an educational project's domain after spending something like $1.25M on developing it...

dtobias · Jan 2, 2003

That "my-ila.com" thing just serves them right... given that they were a British government agency, they ought to have been using the logical and non-cybersquattable .gov.uk domain ending, not some stupid dot-com.