Another RNDH For JB - Hero.com

[Dave_Z]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0779.html

Kudos to the win. And it'll be interesting to see how this one further goes for
the complainant.

Another crazy, crazy summer, huh?

 

[Kate]

Nice to see that there is still common sense in the rulings.

 

[NameCharger]

Kudos to Mr. Berryhill!

 

[bmugford]

What a ridiculous attempt to get a premium domain like that. If Hero.com can be taken in a UDRP then the domain market would collapse.

 

[jberryhill]

Thanks gang, but note:

Even without the Response, the Complainant’s case is fatally weak.

So, ummmmm sure... if you get a frivolous complaint then you don't need to respond. The panel will figure it all out for you, since UDRP panels just love domain registrants.

 

[Dave_Z]

The panel will figure it all out for you

Sigh, don't we wish...

 

[flamewalker]

If only all panelists were as enlightened :D

 

[npcomplete]

Thanks gang, but note:

Even without the Response, the Complainant’s case is fatally weak.

So, ummmmm sure... if you get a frivolous complaint then you don't need to respond. The panel will figure it all out for you, since UDRP panels just love domain registrants.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0779.html
...snip...
The Respondent requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking against the Complainant.
...snip...

John,
Congratulations! The Respondent requested (and was granted) the finding of reverse domain name hijacking. From a basic reading, there was apparently a minority vote (one panelist) that did not find rdnh. That is a close vote, given the word in question "Hero".

The question I have is whether there has ever been (or could there be) a case where the Respondent winner of an rdnh claim has taken the original Complainant to civil court for damages?

 

[jberryhill]

The question I have is whether there has ever been (or could there be) a case where the Respondent winner of an rdnh claim has taken the original Complainant to civil court for damages?

Stay tuned.

 

[Dave_Z]

Stay tuned.

Yup, and hope it turns out more than just damages. Darn it, the suspense is
already killing me!

 

[jberryhill]

Darn it, the suspense is
already killing me!

Well, I wouldn't get too excited. Legal disputes rarely end by ripping out your opponent's still-beating heart and feeding it to dogs.

Pity that.

 

[netmeg]

Well, I wouldn't get too excited. Legal disputes rarely end by ripping out your opponent's still-beating heart and feeding it to dogs.

Pity that.

It's why I never went for the law, actually.

 

[Ronald Regging]

One way or another, they'd be paying my legal fees at a bare minimum.

 

[jberryhill]

One way or another, they'd be paying my legal fees at a bare minimum.

Indeed, that is what the statute provides:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1114.html

(iv) If a registrar, registry, or other registration authority takes an action described under clause (ii) based on a knowing and material misrepresentation by any other person that a domain name is identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of a mark, the person making the knowing and material misrepresentation shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorney’s fees, incurred by the domain name registrant as a result of such action.

The nice thing about attorneys is that they can all read.

Darn it, the suspense is already killing me!

And, as I suggested above, it looks as if there will be no further news on this dispute.

 

[Ronald Regging]

The nice thing about attorneys is that they can all read.

Yeah, it's just a shame they don't all have enough common sense to advise their clients against filing completely ridiculous lawsuits/UDRPs.

 

[Dave_Z]

And, as I suggested above, it looks as if there will be no further news on this dispute.

Aww shucks...