IT.COM

information E-Cigarette Respondent's Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Argument Goes Up In Smoke

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

NickB

it's a mysteryTop Member
Impact
17,467
"This case illustrates several points parties to a UDRP should remember:

1. If a domain name consists of generic or potentially descriptive terms, some UDRP panelists want to see evidence that the domain registrant targeted the complainant's brand specifically when registering it.

2. Complainants must establish both bad-faith registration and use of a domain name. One without the other will not suffice.

3. Frivolous arguments carry consequences for respondents, as well as complainants."

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates...main-name-hijacking-argument-goes-up-in-smoke
 
9
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
That's awkward.

I guess the moral here is that when defending yourself, stick with the facts at hand, don't introduce irrelevant arguments, and take your wins graciously and walk away.

Or say nothing and hire a good lawyer.
 
5
•••
Might have been out bound mistake settiing it off with exact match as we only see a report not witness it unfold on Judge Judy.
 
0
•••
Back