news Why your CTO shouldn’t file a cybersquatting complaint

Looks like they were just fishing for more information about the registrant of ProPlans.com since he ignored their offers.

Also, what's up with saying the domain name was registered in 2023 when the whois clearly shows 1996.

The panelist didn't correct it, either.

Gabriel360 said:

Looks like they were just fishing for more information about the registrant of ProPlans.com since he ignored their offers.

Also, what's up with saying the domain name was registered in 2023 when the whois clearly shows 1996.

The panelist didn't correct it, either.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess what is the actual penalty for lying? Nothing.

It's not like you are going to face perjury charges.

This panelist didn't correct it. Another panelist might not even do any due diligence and just order a transfer, based on the lie.

Brad

bmugford said:

Yeah, I guess what is the actual penalty for lying? Nothing.

It's not like you are going to face perjury charges.

This panelist didn't correct it. Another panelist might not even do any due diligence and just order a transfer, based on the lie.

Brad

Click to expand...

It's even worse when you consider the fact that the complainant claims that the domain name was registered on the SAME date they registered their trademark (November 14,2023)

He lied and chose a date most likely to benefit him and the panelist ran with it.

Very disturbing!

And you are right about the lack of consequences being a HUGE shortcoming of the UDRP process.

Plus, the panelist didn't even make a RDNH ruling.

This dispute highlights the lack of penalties for lying.

https://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2021-1050

In it, the panel says the following about Rob Monster's response -

If this proceeding were being held before a United States court, the court would have the inherent power, as a sanction, to rule for the Complainant in light of the Respondent’s serial misrepresentations. The Policy, however, does not give that power to a panel. Rather, the Panel only can rule for the Complainant if the Complainant satisfies the three elements of the Policy. The Panel turns to that analysis in the following three sections.

Finally, “a request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is an equitable remedy, and equitable relief should only be available to a party who comes before a panel with clean hands.” Breazy Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / VR PRODUCTS I LLC, WIPO Case No. D2021-1486. Given the Respondent’s misconduct and misrepresentations as discussed above, the Panel would not in any event consider it appropriate to enter a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in favor of the Respondent.

Brad

bmugford said:

This dispute highlights the lack of penalties for lying.

https://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2021-1050

In it, the panel says the following about Rob Monster's response -

If this proceeding were being held before a United States court, the court would have the inherent power, as a sanction, to rule for the Complainant in light of the Respondent’s serial misrepresentations. The Policy, however, does not give that power to a panel. Rather, the Panel only can rule for the Complainant if the Complainant satisfies the three elements of the Policy. The Panel turns to that analysis in the following three sections.

Finally, “a request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is an equitable remedy, and equitable relief should only be available to a party who comes before a panel with clean hands.” Breazy Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / VR PRODUCTS I LLC, WIPO Case No. D2021-1486. Given the Respondent’s misconduct and misrepresentations as discussed above, the Panel would not in any event consider it appropriate to enter a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in favor of the Respondent.

Brad

Click to expand...

Lying. And wasting time and generally abusing the process.

Gabriel360 said:

Lying. And wasting time and generally abusing the process.

Click to expand...

In a normal situation like this, you would hire a lawyer and likely opt for a 3 member panel, to try and help mitigate a bad decision from an awful/rogue panelist.

You could be out like $5K - $10K even if you "win".

Brad

bmugford said:

You could be out like $5K - $10K even if you "win".

Click to expand...

Correct!

This is the main issue with the current UDRP system.

The complainant has everything to gain and nothing to lose while the respondent has everything to lose but nothing to gain.

Like you said, a win for the respondent is still a loss (of time and money). And a loss means he's out of potentially valuable assets and money.

Meanwhile the worst that could happen to a complainant with a frivolous case filed with FALSE information is a finding of RDNH.

And RDNH is practically a slap on the wrist that works from home.

The respondent in this case got lucky that a CTO wanted to play lawyer.

A good attorney might have successfully convinced the panelist, who seems a bit careless, that the complainant is the legitimate owner of the domain name.

The case is funny but also concerning.

They almost had it, so close. Time to .build a new strategy.