Membership is FREE – with unlimited access to all features, tools, and discussions. Premium accounts get benefits like banner ads and newsletter exposure. ✅ Signature links are now free for all. 🚫 No AI-generated (LLM) posts allowed. Share your own thoughts and experience — accounts may be terminated for violations.

Respondent Defaults, but Panel Finds Reverse Hijacking Anyway

Status
Not open for further replies.

dtobias

Level 6
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
590
Reaction score
1
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

Level 9
Legacy Gold Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2002
Messages
3,533
Reaction score
0
" ... 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

Level 8
Legacy Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
1,370
Reaction score
0
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.
 

dtobias

Level 6
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
590
Reaction score
1
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Who has viewed this thread (Total: 1) View details

Who has watched this thread (Total: 1) View details

The Rule #1

Do not insult any other member. Be polite and do business. Thank you!

Members Online

Premium Members

Upcoming events

Latest Listings

Our Mods' Businesses

*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators

Top Bottom