LH.com Lost !

[Pred]

Reverse hijacking is on the increase guys.
LH.com has just been lost by elequa.

Feel bad for him as this is a terrible decision by wipo imho and it raises questions about their integrity and conduct imo

More Here

 

[domi]

I bought an LL.ca recently whose original owner had used the domain for years as an email address. He never tried to sell the domain, he just wanted a short domain for his email and I don't think he had a clue what it was worth... WIPO would consider such use as "not using the domain", yet this guy was using the name -- each and everyday as an email.

What really gives WIPO the right to dictate how we use OUR names? How much money do domainers pay ICANN each year in fees? What do we get for this - more laws + rules to screw us over?

I think there needs to be some sort of compensation attached to a WIPO decision whereby the complainant has to pay fair market value for the domain should they win. This would make a lot of these companies think twice before submitting to WIPO and for those who's domains are taken from them will at least get something. It is, as has been previously stated, far cheaper in most cases for them to WIPO instead of making a fair offer to the current owner.
I know if trademarked then they may be "entitled" to the domain but they should have either reg'd it themselves or be prepared to purchase it from the current owner. The way things are at the moment is just legalised theft IMO.

I agree.

 

[Charley]

He should have developed the name really instead of parking the name. It would reduced chances of losing the name.

 

[accent]

The man who owns 500 acres overlooking Manhattan because he likes the view.

Of course the mega-shopping center is a "better" use. Take that land from the grubby squatter, give it to the fat pigs to whom it should belong. It would save everybody gasoline.

Some of you guys are thinking that there is fairness in the business world....???

Remember inc.mobi? - only difference is that Elequa has the money to fight back. And with his huge stake in short domains he probably needs to push this as far as the Supreme Court, if need be. This may be what sets the table for the future.

 

[Charley]

only difference is that Elequa has the money to fight back.

Wouldn't be a GREAT idea to tackle a big organisation as Lufthansa.

 

[The Stealthy One]

Oh, what bad news! That is such a poor decision.

Wouldn't be a GREAT idea to tackle a big organisation as Lufthansa.

Why not? It's his property, and he has every right to get it back. I hope he does fight this as far along as possible.

 

[bmugford]

Exactly, like I said earlier. Just like eminent domain. If they want to take your property they have to pay fair market value.

I think there needs to be some sort of compensation attached to a WIPO decision whereby the complainant has to pay fair market value for the domain should they win. This would make a lot of these companies think twice before submitting to WIPO and for those who's domains are taken from them will at least get something. It is, as has been previously stated, far cheaper in most cases for them to WIPO instead of making a fair offer to the current owner.
I know if trademarked then they may be "entitled" to the domain but they should have either reg'd it themselves or be prepared to purchase it from the current owner. The way things are at the moment is just legalised theft IMO.

 

[Charley]

Why not?

I like being positive always and it is his domain name. But really this will go far beyond millions of dollars in the lawsuit.

 

[recluse99]

If i had a real valuable domain name i would register a trademark using the .tld in it,
ie: LH.com , tm
with all the extensions available it should be this way...

 

[equity78]

Lets look at some areas of the WIPO interesting

First one stating Parking not legitimate basically

Complainant contends that Respondent currently uses the <lh.com> domain name to resolve to a web page that features Respondent’s OXiDE search engine and displays numerous sponsored links to third party websites relating to various subjects. Complainant contends that Respondent profits from receiving click-through fees for each misdirected user. The Panel finds that such use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and that it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (“Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant’s business does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not using a disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by redirecting Internet users to a commercial search engine website with links to multiple websites that may be of interest to the complainant’s customers and presumably earning “click-through fees” in the process).



In this one the MARK DOES NOT NEED TO PREDATE REGISTRATION so regging a domain in 2002 and someone having no mark until 2007 as an example for what is being implied here.

Moreover, the Panel notes, Complainant’s rights in the LH mark need not predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in order to satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Javacool Software Dev., LLC v. Elbanhawy Invs., FA 836772 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2007) (holding that a complainant need not show that its rights in its mark predate the respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in order to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also CDG v. WSM Domains, FA 933942 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 2, 2007) (“A plain reading of ¶ 4(a)(i) imposes no burden on a Complainant to demonstrate that it has either exclusive right to a mark or that such rights predate the registration of a domain name.”).


How is LH not a generic domain ?

Respondent engages in the mass acquisition of two-letter and three-letter domain names.


Respondent’s business model involves the indiscriminate acquisition and use of as many such domain names as possible.


Respondent claims that “Hundreds if not thousands” of entities seek to use the “lh” mark [sic] and have offered Respondent up to $1,000,000 U.S. dollars for it.


The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark and is not generic.

 

[liquidcherry]

In this case it has hit someone that can potentially afford to go for a lawsuit and end this disaster caused by an uneducated, unreasonable and simply false decision. My problem is more along the lines of; what happens when it hits any of us? The ones that have enough to collect domains, but cannot afford a 6-digit lawsuit to defend what's rightfully ours?
M.

How about creating a fund for days(they will come) like that, backed /managed by the DNOA...oh and don't forget the ribbon!

Of course, there needs a lot of legal work to be done...and who is eligible etc...

Anyway, i just wonder how many free flights/air miles the panelist have received

Cheers,

Frank

 

[Charley]

How is LH not a generic domain ?

Generic names are products or services that can also be categories, processes, phrases, job titles, places and dictionary words.

Also known as Direct Navigation

 

[equity78]

Right they said LH not a generic domain.

Respondent engages in the mass acquisition of two-letter and three-letter domain names.


Respondent’s business model involves the indiscriminate acquisition and use of as many such domain names as possible.


Respondent claims that “Hundreds if not thousands” of entities seek to use the “lh” mark [sic] and have offered Respondent up to $1,000,000 U.S. dollars for it.


The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark and is not generic.

 

[-REECE-]

He has the money to go after them if he wants to make an example out of them...

I like being positive always and it is his domain name. But really this will go far beyond millions of dollars in the lawsuit.

 

[Charley]

The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark and is not generic.

Yes that is true.

That's the reason they hijacked the name.

He has the money to go after them if he wants to make an example out of them...

Right, would like to read updates as the case moves along.

 

[staffjam]

This is very worrying.
So is there any defence at all to a negative WIPO ruling?
No appeal process?

From what i'm understanding here - it's not a good idea to offer your domains for sale?
I'm just in the process of setting up a site with all my names listed, 2 character.coms, 3 letter.coms, one word .com's, 50 CVCV.com's, etc...
Now i'm being advised a perfectly legitimate trading business is in danger of having it's assets taken away for nothing - unbelievable.

This business is hard enough without having rodents stealing from you.

I really think all domainers large and small need to put their heads and resources together to find a way to fight these sort of decisions or at least level the playing field.

 

[VisionEdger]

it just goes to show that you do NOT own ANY domains, they are simply rented and the landlords (wipo, icann etc) are acting on their and the big $$$$ corps own secret agendas! This industry is just getting started with such activity imho. This is just the beginning of such nefarious activity no doubt.

 

[Mike]

it just goes to show that you do NOT own ANY domains, they are simply rented and the landlords (wipo, icann etc) are acting on their and the big $$$$ corps own secret agendas! This industry is just getting started with such activity imho. This is just the beginning of such nefarious activity no doubt.

Food for a conspiracy theory in the making?
I don't disagree - the Snowe bill is living proof that our assets are of complete unimportance.
The LH.com decision just predicts what's headed towards us. In all essence, and if i understood everything correctly, the LH ruling is just a Snowe bill executed before the actual bill has passed, correct?
WIPO being a bit preemptive here, eh? Or to fuel the fire on the conspiracy theory - does the WIPO panel know something about the passing of the Snowe bill that we don't know?

M.

 

[onewordonly]

Well I have just read the first page of this thread... they should have been given a huge payment at least for the domain, not just give it up with no compensation.

 

[squid]

Organizations like this have been set up, yet the people running have no real idea about the domaining world. Maybe they should employ domainers, not morons who have never registered a domain in their life.

It's stupid how they can take a domain, because a company believes it belongs to them. If i claimed a company was mine, because it shared my name, where would i get? Nowhere.

There's got to be a bribe in this, in can't simply be that WIPO believe the domain is rightfully that companies, bulls**t!

 

[RogueWriter]

I disagree that they should have been given a huge payment for the domain, as that implies there was some aspect of the wipo that remained valid.

The only legitimate result of this should have been a rejection of the hijacking attempt, plain and simple. I would certainly hope this gets reversed, and that the culprits get a humiliating, financially brutalizing WWE-styled smackdown - anything less leaves the door open for large scale sniping.

 

[domi]

He was offered $1Million for the domain people did offer to buy the domain and 1million bucks is a fair deal.
Domains do not belong to the registrants and yes it can be taken away if abused.
If you are hoarding many lll.coms and ll.coms that is just hijacking the market IMHO.
Its called GREED

 

[squid]

He was offered $1Million for the domain people did offer to buy the domain and 1million bucks is a fair deal.
Domains do not belong to the registrants and yes it can be taken away if abused.
If you are hoarding many lll.coms and ll.coms that is just hijacking the market IMHO.
Its called GREED

First come first serve.
So you're saying somebody who spends a lot of effort working towards earning a lot of money should have that money taken from them, because they own too much?

 

[equity78]

The thing that's interesting is they made an offer to buy it and Elequa only wanted to lease the domain out. That should be proof to the WIPO if they felt they were the rightful owner why did they offer to buy it ?

 

[Pred]

He was offered $1Million for the domain people did offer to buy the domain and 1million bucks is a fair deal.
Domains do not belong to the registrants and yes it can be taken away if abused.
If you are hoarding many lll.coms and ll.coms that is just hijacking the market IMHO.
Its called GREED

he doesn't sell. he's come on record and said before. his privilege.
i respect that. that will also help his defence. lufthansa are gonna get a rocket up their german arse lol

i have no great respect for him for his empire or anything as he's not self made, he has an incredibly rich family by all accounts, however what he invests in is his business, he's hurting no-one and he develops too, he is slowly building up sites.

btw, his buyouts of lll.biz, lll.info have raised prices for us all don't forget
although his biz investment is not looking too sexy
:sold:

 

[-REECE-]

I don't know why he offered to lease it? Regardless, the decision has wrong written all over it. Lufthansa is entitled to Lufthansa.com, that I can understand and agree to... But LH.com?

He was offered $1Million for the domain people did offer to buy the domain and 1million bucks is a fair deal.
Domains do not belong to the registrants and yes it can be taken away if abused.
If you are hoarding many lll.coms and ll.coms that is just hijacking the market IMHO.
Its called GREED