Adsense HTML

Showing posts with label RDNH. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RDNH. Show all posts

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Lawsuit Dismissed in USA

An interesting legal decision regarding the domain name pocketbook.com was handed down by a United States district judge this month.  The case arose out of this NAF UDRP decision from 2019 that decided for the domain name owner:  https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1857174.htm

The court reviewed the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) prohibits reverse
domain name hijacking, which occurs when “overreaching trademark owners” interfere with a
domain name registrant’s lawful use of a domain name. 

The court decided that the requirement that the domain name “has been suspended, disabled, or transferred” does not include temporary suspension during the pendency of a UDRP case.

See decision here https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/pocketbook.pdf  and case note here.


Non Specialist Lawyers Doing Domain Name Disputes - A big risk!

In my opinion, there is a big risk using a non-specialist lawyer to run a domain name dispute under the UDRP or auDRP.  A recent example is the Brisbane law firm Dowd & Co running a domain name dispute under the UDRP for a complainant.  Not only were they unsuccessful, there was a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) against the Complainant, and resulting bad publicity.

The Panel stated:

"It is evident from the Complaint in this case that the Complainant has not fully appreciated the requirement to prove both registration and use in bad faith.... This Complaint was therefore doomed to fail at the outset as the Complainant could not prove registration in bad faith. The Complainant and/or its legal counsel should have appreciated this. A passing familiarity with Policy precedent on this issue (for example, as described in section 3.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0) is something that the Panel is entitled to expect from parties represented by legal counsel, and it is lacking here. Such familiarity would have caused the Complainant to be aware of its difficulties in pursuing the Complaint. A modicum of additional research would also have indicated to the Complainant that the Respondent itself had created and run a business by the name of “Streamline Servers”, well before 2009, and it therefore had a bona fide basis for registration of the disputed domain name."

Not something good to have on the public record against you.

See GSL Networks Pty Ltd. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Alex Alvanos, Bobservers, WIPO Case No. D2021-2255

See Domain Wire

Australian Social Media Law proposed

The Australian Government has just released a proposed law to deal with defamation and social media comments. See Social Media (Anti-Trollin...