Advertise on DNForum

  • Welcome to DNForum.com - Domain Investor Forum, Free Domain Marketplace and a community for 45+ domain pros
    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.

Manic Millionare

Upcoming UDRP cases -- arcade.com and others

Status
Not open for further replies.
Domain Summit Asia 2026
Respondent has repeatedly been approached by a variety of parties, including Complainant, proposing to buy the domain name ...
Click to expand...
I always find it revealing when "domain hijackers" first offer to buy the name before trying to steal it through UDRP. Panelists should regard prior offers as the complainant's acknowledgement of the current owners right to own. And it should prohibit a hijacker from utilizing UDRP if they ever made a previous offer to buy. That's akin to asking someone if you can borrow $100 from them. And if they say "no", then you just rob them. :wink:
 
Panelists should regard prior offers as the complainant's acknowledgement of the current owners right to own.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I regularly pick apart those offers and present them as an admission by the complainant of the respondent's rights in the domain name. Why offer to buy something you believe to belong to you by right?
 
I wish we could beat people up for domains..I would learn kung fu and go after the owner of domain.com

- cause I own domain names of course! that gives me the right...duh
 
I think the arbitrators erred, because only the "Official Mark" holder should have been able to file the UDRP. The complainant in this case didn't have the ability to register their claimed mark.
 
you have a page with a list of the decisions that you represented?
Click to expand...

It's on my to-do list. I don't advertise, and there are some decisions to the effect that posting such lists is an inherently deceptive form of attorney advertising, because the outcome of any particular case depends on its facts, and prospective clients could be misled by such lists.

The funny thing is that if you read cases cited on law firm websites, you'd swear that attorneys never lose.
 
GeorgeK said:
2) hockeycanada.com -- seems generic enough to me, go Igal aka "Mrs Jello"
Click to expand...

She lost.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-1050.html

I agree with rights to TM for the most part. But in some cases I feel a word is public domain. In this case I have to agree with wipo's findings. When she was served she changed the page. That's tells a story right there. It's too bad someone has to lose money. But most people who spend 20k on a name will check the details first before risking that kind of money. I would think that some of these cases will show people the risk of TM usage for financial gain without having any right to it. I'll pick up the occasional TM, not with the intention of "Sponging" anothers hard work and massive marketing. But because I have a real use for it.

Kevin.

gg HCA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Events
  • Auctions
    • Back
    Top Bottom