opinion 2021 Punishment of reverse domain name hijacking – A fair reprimand or far too lenient?

[NickB]

"The accessibility and affordability of the UDRP process have been key factors in its success. While the policy allows for brand owners to recover infringing domain names without the need for litigation, it has unfortunately also been misused."..........

https://www.worldtrademarkreview.co...e-hijacking-fair-reprimand-or-far-too-lenient

*I'm not affiliated with SafeNames*

 

[Bob Hawkes]

An important read. Thanks for sharing, @NickB.

I agree with the premise that there needs to be more penalty for inappropriately using UDRP. I found the following particularly disconcerting (and something I had not thought of before, that lawyers would abuse the process to get information for a later legal process) "the purpose of filing was to 'force early discovery' and 'obtain an optimal jurisdiction after the decision'."

Bob

 

[NickB]

An important read. Thanks for sharing, @NickB.

I agree with the premise that there needs to be more penalty for inappropriately using UDRP. I found the following case particularly disconcerting (and something I had not thought of before) "the purpose of filing was to 'force early discovery' and 'obtain an optimal jurisdiction after the decision'."

Bob

The next paragraph mentions concerns about it becoming "the norm" - I wonder just how many cases have been used for this purpose, it might be quite a lot and could already be a standard tactic?

 

[Future Sensors]

Thanks for sharing this @NickB

@jberryhill Can you confirm such a trend as highlighted by @Bob Hawkes in his posting above?

Thanks.

 

[jberryhill]

Can you confirm such a trend

A trend of what?

So far in 2021, I have had five cases in which I represented a Respondent go to a decision:

damstra.com WIPO D2021-0675
reboxed.com WIPO D2021-0886
citycentre.com WIPO D2021-059
ilko.com WIPO D2020-3379
hsil.com WIPO D2020-3416

Every single one was an RDNH. Every. Single. One.