I was just made aware of a mind boggling UDRP filing. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has filed a UDRP for the ABC.net domain name. The filing was made at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and it is WIPO Case D2019-1181.
ABC.net was created in 1995. It was probably one of the earliest .net domain names created that still retains its original registration date. A Whois record for the domain name shows the domain name is registered to someone in Ontario, Canada. Using DomainTools’ historical Whois tool, it looks like the domain name was registered to the same person back in 2000 (the earliest archived Whois record at DomainTools). At that time, the domain name was registered to an entity called ABC Computer Networks Inc., and the registrant contact is the same person who is the current registrant.
With a UDRP filing like this, you might think the domain name has clearly infringing content on it to make the Australian Broadcasting Corporation believe it has the rights to take possession of this domain name via the UDRP process. From what I can see on the landing page, it looks like an image of a city skyline with a “for sale” message in the foreground:
“The domain name ABC.NET is now available for sale. We’re currently accepting offers for this ultra premium domain name. If you would like to make an offer or discuss available options, please contact us directly at:”
Using the DomainTools historical screenshot tool, I do not see any instances of past infringement (like links referencing that company or competitors, for example).
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation uses the ccTLD ABC.net.au domain name for its website. I presume it wants the easier to remember ABC.net domain name so it doesn’t have to worry about misdirected email to the .net domain name or lost traffic. If that is the case and it is a concern, this entity should buy the valuable domain name instead of using the UDRP process to try and take it.
I may not know all of the details about the domain name or the UDRP beyond what I can see, but I see nothing that would lead me to believe the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be able to win the UDRP. In fact, I would be surprised if a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) is not made based solely on what I can see here.
I will keep my eyes on this UDRP proceeding and share an update when it concludes.
Update: According to the WIPO website, the complaint was denied. The decision is not yet published, so I do not know how this decision or if a finding of RDNH was made.
“I see nothing that would lead me to believe the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be able to win the UDRP”
On the surface, yes, but there is the extreme depths of basic evil and corruption to consider. For instance, the lying diabolical corruption being perpetrated regarding Julian Assange is being done in front of the entire world, and “they” don’t care. “They” have even done a decent job of manipulating a large part of the public to either not care, be too afraid to speak, or actively “manufacture consent” about it as well.
We have already seen plenty from both ICANN and UDRP proceedings to know to be concerned about the basics of human nature, which is not “basically good.”
Can you share a few adverse UDRP decisions where this type of thing happened?
I don’t have them at my fingertips, but why would you even ask? Has there not been numerous examples in the domain blogs over the years where people were dumbfounded by the outcome and thought it was completely perverse, including where complainants prevailed? Are we not this very moment living out the perverse reality of ICANN seeking to remove price caps while the principle and moral arguments about the matter are clear to any 12 year old, even younger?
I was just coming back to say I doubt they will do “the wrong thing” in this case. “They” are certainly not always willing to do the wrong thing when it’s so obvious, otherwise there would be no need for propaganda or “manufacturing consent.” However, would certainly never say never.
What on earth are you talking about?
“Can you share a few adverse UDRP decisions where this type of thing happened?” Ha HaHa…funny one.
So easy to make up stuff in your mind and then type. Or….. is it too easy ? Is the government making it too easy? I wonder.
How weird to have a troll like you show up, and especially with the mention of Assange.
Yes, it’s easy to make up stuff in your mind. I didn’t say there have been decisions like that in my original comment, though I’m confident there have been, and to the best of my recollection there have been some even discussed in the blogs even if I can’t rattle off a list of specific cases like most normal people couldn’t either.
But what I did do in my original comment is simply point out the reality of the normal human tendency and propensity to corruption and wrongdoing.
And I have not replied for your sake, but for the readers who are not trolls like you.
PS, did I make up the stuff about price caps to illustrate the point too. 😉
PPS, since we know much of a friend the UDRP process has been to registrants and domain investors, and how people in blogs and forums have never decried how it favors complainants, it’s of course perfectly normal and understandable that a troll like you would even be commenting this way here too. 😉
And when you get a chance, dumbass, explain to the world exactly what it is that I “made up in my mind.” And do explain why you would be commenting here like this when people have been decrying for years how the UDRP process tends to favor complainants vs. registrants to begin with. Yes, do tell, dumbass. 😉
Took you long enough to do something like that, dumbass.
“And when you get a chance, dumbass, explain to the world exactly what it is that I “made up in my mind.” And do explain why you would be commenting here like this when people have been decrying for years how the UDRP process tends to favor complainants vs. registrants to begin with. Yes, do tell, dumbass.”
What does the Australian firm have to lose?
Maybe, $ 5,000 to $ 10,000 in legal fees which is a drop in the bucket for them. They know the domain is worth between 6 and 7 figures. It is worth the gamble.
As mentioned many times, that is the flaw with the UDRP legal process.