IT.COM

UDRP CYBERSQUATTERS GIVE US ALL A BAD NAME

NameSilo
Watch

News

Hand-picked NewsTop Member
Impact
3,427
For a number of years, I have been listing the panelists at WIPO and the FORUM who have Denied Complaints by Trademark holders under the UDRP. This year, I decided to go one step further and list the “BAD” Panelists who seldom, if ever, deny complaints and consistently rule against the Domain Investor and require the transfer of the offending domain to the complainant. However, in doing my research I was surprised to learn that the very same Panelists who were listed as the “Good Guys” also ruled for the Complainant.
What I DID learn is that at WIPO, 155 of the 165 cases requiring transfer of the domain name were Default cases as the Domain Owner never responded and that they were almost all obvious trademark infringements. Even more interesting is that at the FORUM of the 77 cases requiring transfer of the domain, all 77 were defaults because the Domain Owner didn’t file a Response.
Read More
 
6
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
(quote begin)

These are your Cybersquatters who give us all a bad name. And this was a very limited review of only 242 recently decided cases. Additionally, the cybersquatters are indeed world wide

(quote end)

Indeed worldwide, and also @ NamePros unfortunately. The libra domains thread alone is a perfect example. Also, a number of regular and respected members are knowingly registering obviously trademarked names on regular basis. Some have already been Respondents in UDRPs and lost, and have balls to promote such registrations, trying to sell them in sales section of NP, etc. :(
 
Last edited:
2
•••
(quote begin)

These are your Cybersquatters who give us all a bad name. And this was a very limited review of only 242 recently decided cases. Additionally, the cybersquatters are indeed world wide

(quote end)

Indeed worldwide, and also @ NamePros unfortunately. The libra domains thread alone is a perfect example. Also, a number of regular and respected members are registering obviously trademarked names on regular basis. Some have already been Respondents in UDRPs and lost, and have balls to promote such registrations, trying to sell them in sales section of NP, etc. :(
Just going to correct you, "Libra" domains have nothing to do with cybersquatting. Putting a label on such a broad approach to domain investing hurts all of us, it pigeon holes us to a very narrow and specific meaning.
 
0
•••
"Libra" domains have nothing to do with cybersquatting.

Yeah. 100% correct. It depends on the registration date though ;)

So, obviously, someone thought, on June 20th of this year, that a domain with Libra in it might have value. Golly, what happened in June 2019 that could give someone that idea?

Oh, and, get this. The registrant then posted the domain name on an Internet forum in a thread discussing Libra domains!

And not just that. Let’s take a look at what this person DIDN’T do. Does this person have LeoEmpowers? ScorpioEmpowers? CapricornEmpowers?

No. Just LibraEmpowers, and just registered after a ton of media frenzy over a proposed Facebook launch.

The reason for registering that domain name is completely transparent.

Again, you know how little children think they can “hide” by covering their face with their hands? That’s what a lot of domainers look like when they engage in silly rationalizations.

Quoted from
https://www.namepros.com/threads/libra-domains-fingers-crossed.1144220/
 
1
•••
Yeah. 100% correct. It depends on the registration date though ;)
Ironically it was Berryhill who won a case that distinguished currency as being generic, regardless of the TM. As with most lawyers they can argue cases both ways. He seemed to do that in the Libra currency niche.
 
2
•••
Ironically it was Berryhill who won a case that distinguished currency as being generic, regardless of the TM. As with most lawyers they can argue cases both ways. He seemed to do that in the Libra currency niche.
Ironically it was Berryhill and his sidekick Kate who falsely accused me of being a cybersquatter, and I'll NEVER get over it.
 
0
•••
Ironically it was Berryhill and his sidekick Kate who falsely accused me of being a cybersquatter, and I'll NEVER get over it.
Yeah I saw that. I stand with you. I thought that approach to you was below the line for someone calling themselves professional. We are all domain investors and singling out somebody to make a point is childish, at best. I hope you are able to get over it and move on, it's not you. Try to let it go and move on.

MakeSmilesHappen - as you say @ThatNameGuy!
 
Last edited:
0
•••
2
•••
Yeah I saw that. I stand with you. I thought that approach to you was below the line for someone calling themselves professional. We are all domain investors and singling out somebody to make a point is childish, at best. I hope you are able to get over it and move on, it's not you. Try to let it go and move on.
Thanks, and I'll try:xf.wink: It's usually my wife who "never forgets"
 
1
•••
Ironically it was Berryhill who won a case that distinguished currency as being generic, regardless of the TM. As with most lawyers they can argue cases both ways. He seemed to do that in the Libra currency niche.

That giant wooshing sound you hear is the significant distinction between the Krugerrand case, involving the statutory generic name of that South African currency, and the "proprietary out of the gate" Libra name for a cryptocurrency. There is nothing "ironic" about it, and the two situations are not at all analogous.

I realize it is popular among certain kinds of folks to consider people who actually know something about a subject to be somehow disqualified from having a qualified opinion on a topic, but I would appreciate your not attempting to interpret my previous comments for me.

As for ThatNameGuy and his eternal butthurt - he posted a question in the legal forum about what people thought about using a reference to the Beatles in a domain name. I gave him an answer. He does not have to like the answer, but it is utterly foolish to say, "Hey, what do you think about this?" and then complain for months on end that someone had an answer you did not like.
 
10
•••
That giant wooshing sound you hear is the significant distinction between the Krugerrand case, involving the statutory generic name of that South African currency, and the "proprietary out of the gate" Libra name for a cryptocurrency.
Your welcome to explain your interpretation of distinction with Kruggerand currency and Libra cryptocurrency. If you care to share more details.
 
0
•••
Your welcome to explain your interpretation of distinction with Kruggerand currency and Libra cryptocurrency. If you care to share more details.

I suggest you
ask a lawyer
and pay him
to educate you
 
0
•••
I suggest you
ask a lawyer
and pay him
to educate you
I only pay with Krugerrand currency or Libra cryptocurrency. Take your pick between the two currencies.
 
1
•••
That giant wooshing sound you hear is the significant distinction between the Krugerrand case, involving the statutory generic name of that South African currency, and the "proprietary out of the gate" Libra name for a cryptocurrency. There is nothing "ironic" about it, and the two situations are not at all analogous.

I realize it is popular among certain kinds of folks to consider people who actually know something about a subject to be somehow disqualified from having a qualified opinion on a topic, but I would appreciate your not attempting to interpret my previous comments for me.

As for ThatNameGuy and his eternal butthurt - he posted a question in the legal forum about what people thought about using a reference to the Beatles in a domain name. I gave him an answer. He does not have to like the answer, but it is utterly foolish to say, "Hey, what do you think about this?" and then complain for months on end that someone had an answer you did not like.
That's just half the story Berryhill...here's the other half when you and Kate accused me of being the same Richard Morris involved in this UDRP Cybersquatting Case; file:///C:/Users/Richard/Downloads/Cybersquatting%20Richard%20Morris.html

Did I hear you or Kate ever say you're sorry???? Despite your defamation, I'll do my best to forgive you:xf.wink:
 
1
•••
0
•••
That's just half the story Berryhill...here's the other half when you and Kate accused me of being the same Richard Morris involved in this UDRP Cybersquatting Case;

That’s an outright lie.

First off, I am not Kate. Kate is not me. I do not even know who she is other than a username on this forum.

Secondly, Kate, who is not me, ASKED if you were the same person:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/ce...ories-as-a-domain.1052443/page-2#post-6466263

Nobody said you were that person. Kate asked if you were that person.
 
2
•••
Lol. He said. She said.

I would have registered hesaidshesaid.com back in the day.

It's a good name.

And no kids at the playground behavior.
 
1
•••
That’s an outright lie.

First off, I am not Kate. Kate is not me. I do not even know who she is other than a username on this forum.

Secondly, Kate, who is not me, ASKED if you were the same person:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/ce...ories-as-a-domain.1052443/page-2#post-6466263

Nobody said you were that person. Kate asked if you were that person.
NP perjury pure and simple Berryhill...you seem to forget that among other professions I owned a private investigations company Inquisitor Investigations, and I probably know more about you than you know about yourself:xf.wink:
 
0
•••
Lol. He said. She said.

I would have registered hesaidshesaid.com back in the day.

It's a good name.

And no kids at the playground behavior.
Here area a couple of available domains that come to mind involving lawyers and our legal system;

PurePerjury.com
and
FauxLegal.com

I'd hand reg them for fun, but I already have too many ForFunDomains, and btw, ForFunDomains.com is available:xf.wink:
 
0
•••
Back