In April, I noticed that a UDRP had been filed against the MSC.com domain name. Several months prior to the UDRP filing, the domain name had been acquired for €35,000 via Sedo (nearly $50,000 USD). This afternoon, the UDRP decision was reported by WIPO, and the complaint was denied.
The complainant in this case was MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company Holding S.A., a very large global shipping company. The respondent line in the UDRP decision is interesting as it is listed Sedo as one respondent. Later on in the decision, it seems to clarify that Sedo was still listed as the registrant behind privacy, although the domain name was owned by another party, as it had sold but had not yet transferred. Both Sedo and the owner of the domain name responded to the complaint.
I think the UDRP decision was the correct one, and it is good to see that a one-panelist UDRP decision made the correct decision. The respondent sought a finding of reverse domain name hijacking, but that was denied. I am a bit surprised the responding party / parties did not seek a three person UDRP panel, but I am glad the right decision was made.
It’s unfortunate that a domain buyer had to defend a great domain name like this, but it is one of the risks of this business.
Are you first to report this Elliot or was this a story covered somewhere else? Good decision btw.
Just checked Domaining.com and Mike Berkens published an article 3 minutes before mine 🙂
No idea. I wrote the article in betwen the gym, shower, and trip to the appliance store. I dont remember seeing anyone else write about the UDRP filing when it was made though but I could be wrong.
That said, I dont think someone should be prohibited from covering a topic that was already written about. You wouldn’t see CNN not covering something bc ABC covered it. Sometimes, based on publication times, it seems like bloggers are writing at the same time, and I know I don’t really ever check in with other bloggers to see if theyre covering something, especially time sensitive news.
I probably wouldnt cover something “salesy” if I saw someone else cover it, but with news like this, I think the more the merrier.
Sorry, thought I clicked the reply button but I guess not.
“I dont think someone should be prohibited from covering”
Not sure “prohibitive” is even the right word to sue. Besides you’re the Chief of Police here (remember Jaws?) so you make the rules.
I don’t even think “salesy” even enters into it at all. Industry trade publications, at least when I used to read ones in print, frequently cover the same items consistently. The idea is that not everyone reads everything out there. Or even close.
Would also add that it doesn’t even matter to most people who gets it first. That’s a news business thing. Nobody cares who gets the scoop other than people in the media. They always make comments like “talking exclusively to NBC” like who gives a shit? Next time ABC gets the exclusive etc.
I personally don’t like seeing 3 articles in a row on Domaining.com about the same topic.
Regarding “salesy” I mean something like the DN.com broker news. I don’t think it’s important enough to cover if someone else covered it unless I had a much different opinion on the topic. I wouldn’t delete a post I had already written, but if I got back from being away and saw that someone already posted an article about it, I wouldn’t spend time writing about it again unless I had an interesting opinion differing from the other article.
What happens when someone found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking? Have you ever seen any ‘disciplinary’ action so far?
With a lost UDRP, there aren’t any penalties except loss of the domain name.
Thanks for answering my question. But I mean penalty for “complainant” when found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking by filling a UDRP.
There is no penalty for a reverse domain name hijacking finding in a UDRP.