ESQwire Archives | DomainInvesting.com
Neustar Domain Names

ESQwire

Everphone.com UDRP: Despite Front Running, Domain Registrant Prevails

7

Front running is the act of attempting to sell a domain name that is not owned by the person who is making the sale attempt. Unfortunately, front running has become more common, and I wrote about front running during NameJet auctions  a few years ago. There was an interesting UDRP decision that domain auction participants will want to note because front running almost cost the domain registrant a domain name.

A company called Everphone GmbH filed a UDRP to get the Everphone.com domain name. This domain name sold on NameJet for $842 in January of this year, according to NameBio. According to the complainant in this UDRP, it seems that two entities contacted the complainant either during or prior to the auction claiming to be willing to sell this domain name. Because the complainant had been dealing with entities that seem to have been front running this domain name, the auction winner and current registrant was not aware of these other emails when the complainant approached him about selling the domain name.

In the UDRP → Read More


RDNH Finding in ALO.com UDRP

0

A three member WIPO UDRP panel ruled in favor of the domain owner in the ALO.com UDRP. In addition, the panel ruled that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) occurred. The domain name owner was represented by ESQWire.com (Jason Schaeffer and Ari Goldberger), and this is the second case in the last couple of weeks for the law firm where a finding of RDNH was made.

This seems like a pretty cut and dry UDRP decision. It doesn't really make sense that a complainant can win a UDRP when the domain name has been owned longer than the trademark of the company filing the UDRP even existed. In its argument, the complainant cited the "Octogen Case," which was just discussed in a sponsored post the Internet Commerce Association wrote published on CircleID. Putting the theory of "retroactive bad faith" to rest is important for domain name investors.

I think there are several aspects of the UDRP decision that stand out for domain investor rights, and I want to highlight a few of them. (more…) → Read More


RDNH Finding on MagicPlan.com UDRP

0

A UDRP was filed earlier this year against the MagicPlan.com domain name at the National Arbitration Forum, and the decision was published this morning. The UDRP was defended by Ari Goldberger and Jason Schaeffer of ESQWire.com on behalf of the domain owner. In addition to winning the UDRP, the three member panel found that this was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

The first bit of good language for domain investors that was published in the decision came in the "Rights or Legitimate Interests" section. This discussion centered around the respondent's business model as a domain investor, and it cited quite a few examples of similar types of domain names owned by the registrant in showing that the complainant's business was not targeted. This section also referenced other UDRP decisions acknowledging that domain investing is a legitimate business. Here is an excerpt from this section:

"A respondent may register and use a domain name to attract internet traffic based upon the appeal of a commonly used descriptive → Read More


ATC.com UDRP Won by Domain Owner

2

In late March, I wrote about the ATC.com UDRP filing.  ATC.com had been created back in 1990, and the complainant owned the domain name for many years. The decision was just made, and the domain owner will retain this valuable domain name. The  ESQwire.com  law firm defended the domain name on behalf of the owner.

The primary reason for the decision going in favor of the domain name owner was that the three person panel found that the "Complainant has failed to establish sufficient trademark rights to the letters ATC." Because of this finding, the panel did not have to decide whether or not the domain owner had rights or interest in owning the domain name, nor did the panel need to consider whether the owner had registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

In looking at the decision (which should be published publicly soon), it appears that the panel declined to consider Reverse Domain Name Hijacking for this UDRP proceeding. Since it  does not appear in the decision, I  do not know why it was not considered. Based on → Read More


Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Ruling in MEZ.com UDRP

8

In September of last year, a UDRP was filed against the Mez.com domain name. This afternoon, I learned via an update on UDRPSearch.com that the UDRP was denied. I later learned that the panel also ruled that this was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

The registrant  of the domain name was represented by attorney Jason Schaeffer of the ESQWire law firm in New Jersey. In my opinion, ESQWire is one of the top law firms representing domain name owners in UDRP and other domain name defense cases.

Although I asked for and received a copy of the UDRP provided by attorney Schaeffer, the decision has not yet been published on the WIPO website. I uploaded a pdf of the decision here.

The UDRP was initiated  by a Swiss company called George Mez AG shortly after the complainant submitted an offer of $600 to buy the domain name. The company also apparently mentioned its MEZ trademarks in the purchase discussion. From my perspective, three letter .com domain names have been worth beyond three figures for over a decade, and → Read More


RDNH Finding in GWG.com UDRP

0

I recently wrote about the GWG.com UDRP that was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization. The decision was published today, and the three member panel found in favor of the domain owner. In addition, the panel concluded that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) had occurred.

According to the decision, "the Panel's view is that there are several reasons why a finding of RDNH should be made." The decision then listed several reasons for why it found this UDRP to be RDNH.

One thing I found very interesting is that the panel wrote about why it chose to make a reverse domain name hijacking decision rather than simply rule in favor of the respondent. Here's what was written about that: (more…) → Read More


« Older Entries