UDRP BC30.com UDRP lost by NamePros Member

[Silentptnr]

Sorry to read that Rob Monster lost a domain and a payday. I learned from this.

https://domaingang.com/domain-law/bc30-com-udrp-what-not-to-do-when-negotiating-a-domain-sale/

Let's discuss this.

I personally have never been involved in a udrp case, but naturally I've contemplated my plan if I ever am.

 

[Rob Monster]

It was a hand-reg for which I had a fairly modest basis.

The buyer had used DomainAgents to try to buy it in September. I gave them a very fair offer:

They then filed a UDRP. My upside was probably a bit capped so hiring John Berryhill was not really a slam dunk for ROI even though I would probably hire him if he liked his odds.

It was also a bit of an experiment to see if the one-person panel is capable of getting it right.

I submit they did not.

Here was my input to this case sent on January 10, 2020 to WIPO:

#####

In brief, BC30.com was bought be me. It is LLNN.com popular with Chinese speculators lately. We have owned it for a long time. It could easily refer to the year 30 B.C. as well as countless other BC 3.0, etc.

You can be fully certain that the domain was registered in 2011 by me, on the drop, for no other reason than because it is short, like Epik.com. There is absolutely no case of malfeasance. None.

However, if we lose this complaint, we will take care to critique the outcome in the public theater. We are not huge believers in the future of WIPO. See here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/have-you-hugged-your-whois-privacy-provider-today.1162503

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...upper-that-is-held-via-privacy-proxy.1163437/

These articles get thousands of views because I wrote them. Most of my threads rank in the top most active in any given month.

Here is one written by someone else:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/qa...tqatar-com-in-cybersquatting-dispute.1163473/

It should have had a lot more activity due to the egregiousness of the decision. I have yet to draw attention to it.

Long story short: dissatisfaction with WIPO increases with each passing day, in part because the system is routinely abused by overreaching complainants.

In fact, WIPO UDRP made my prediction list for 2020:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/happy-new-years-what-is-your-2020-forecast.1170533/

See the second to last prediction:

I suggest make the right decision. The domain is generic and the complaint should be denied. And if you would find RDNH, I will acknowledge a glimmer of hope when it comes to due process from WIPO.

I also suggest you advise complainants to just pay a fair price for domains they have no right to in the first place. It saves time and it will avoid the early demise of your institution as you seek to redeem yourselves in 2020.

Good luck.

Regards,
Rob

#####

Well, folks, it's time for some sunlight. It's time to put on your shades because WIPO thuggery is on parade.

Time to pick apart their findings and see what can be learned from it.

Looking ahead, the DNProtect.com project being developed with @bhartzer will help folks insure against such nonsense cases. There is protection in numbers -- spread the risk across many domains.

 

[bmugford]

My thoughts on this -

1.) When a buyer counters an asking price, that asking price is no longer valid.

2.) It should not be the UDRP judge's decision to determine what is "fair market value". A registrant either has the right to sell a domain of not. If they have the right to sell it, the asking price is their prerogative.

Brad

 

[jberryhill]

I will claim ibm is just 3 letters, which can be shared by many companies, so it is almost like a generic word

IBM is not just three letters. In fact, when I'm defending cases involving short three or four letter domain names, I will usually point out that it is not as if we are talking about IBM, HSBC, BMW, etc..

"which can be shared by many companies" - Oh really? Name a few.

IBM is immediately recognizable as a well known and famous mark.

Currently pending:

D2020-1635
ibmcoronavirus.org

D2020-1650
ibmassist.com

D2020-1684
ibmupdate.com

D2020-1720
ibmconsulting.com

Saying "IBM is just three letters" does not explain why you registered the name and believed it to be valuable. Do you have the same keyword registered with some OTHER just three letters in front of it?

I can assure you that every single one of those IBM(keyword) cases pending before WIPO is going to be decided in favor of IBM or the respondent is going to be smart enough to seek a UDRP rule 17 transfer.

That's not "corruption". That's simple common sense.

 

[Rob Monster]

Anyway, now that you have seen the verbatim of my response to WIPO, you can't say I did not warn them. I much rather compete in the court of public opinion than deal with anonymous panelists whose very existence is subsidized by the corporate clients who pay the UDRP fees. It's rigged folks. Not a fan of WIPO and look forward to empowering a private sector counter-measure for dispute resolution so that nobody in their right mind would choose to use WIPO if they could avoid it.

 

[Rob Monster]

Why not go to court over this to prove a point and establish ground rules? Yes it will cost more than the domain is worth but if this was bc.com or 30.com you would fight for justice.

The community relies on the few that have resources to fight back. Just a thought.

If I had spent 8 hours managing a formal defense of BC30.com from an apparently budget-constrained complainant, that would have been 8 hours not spent doing something else in January.

At the same, I recognize the larger problem which is a corrupt institution that also handed VisitQatar.com to a complainant.

Believe it or not, I try to pick my battles and then sequence them.

When David walked onto the battlefield to meet Goliath, he had only a sling, but his faith was mighty. Do you know what else David took with him? He brought 5 stones to the battlefield.

After all, Goliath had 4 brothers -- most people miss that.

Read Psalms -- Solomon and David did not have it easy either. Eventually they prevailed.

My takeaway is this: pick your battles, sequence battles, have faith, and stay humble.

We'll see how it all plays out.

 

[Rob Monster]

It looked like 2 different offers.

See here:

There was an offer thread that started on September 18, 2019.

There was another other offer thread started on October 23, 2019.

How am I supposed to know that these are the same person? I can't. It is a black box.

So, before the $4200 buyer closed, I get another inquiry. I assume it is a new bidder and that the old bidder was not yet ready to complete their transaction.

In either case, my offer was in the right range. This was no moonshot.

The problem is that Domain Agents is a blackbox and offers no assistance in managing the dialog to get to a funded transaction. That is why I mostly ignore Domain Agents.

 

[Rob Monster]

I wonder if there was any cash passed under the table?

In my responses I ALWAYS give a price and a time line. 48, 72 hours and sometimes ten days if it is a big sale. It is standard sales procedure to give a deadline for a deal. Also in my response to the low baller (assuming the first offer was low) I let them know the price has no where to go but up after my time period for purchase has passed.

The complainant clearly wanted to abbreviate their name...the clowns should have paid Rob his asking price in the first place. WIPO be clowns, yo.

Exactly.

The crazy part is that the $4800 would have been about what they probably ended up funding in legal fee and WIPO filing fees to get the domain. It just took longer and gave me a new ax to grind.

The case was far from a slam dunk for the complainant and now WIPO has to endure the court of public opinion for getting another case wrong.

Anyway, WIPO will end soon. With each abuse of due process, the Internet further decentralizes.

 

[Silentptnr]

There should be an appeal process available where a larger panel might review decisions.

 

[Maximinus]

I am a nub, but for me "This is Sparta"
Nobody should be able to take away your domain for free, just because you are skilled in sales negotiation.

 

[Keith]

Exactly.

The crazy part is that the $4800 would have been about what they probably ended up funding in legal fee and WIPO filing fees to get the domain. It just took longer and gave me a new ax to grind.

The case was far from a slam dunk for the complainant and now WIPO has to endure the court of public opinion for getting another case wrong.

Anyway, WIPO will end soon. With each abuse of due process, the Internet further decentralizes.

Why not go to court over this to prove a point and establish ground rules? Yes it will cost more than the domain is worth but if this was bc.com or 30.com you would fight for justice.

The community relies on the few that have resources to fight back. Just a thought.

 

[Rob Monster]

lol....I love the punch behind the pillow in your response.

Thanks -- they were absolutely warned. The topic of WIPO overreach desperately needs to be exposed and they gave my a license to do exactly that. I literally told them:

- Here's a trap
- I recommend you not step in it
- If you step in it, we'll share it with the world.

The outcome was predictable. It will cost WIPO a lot more than the domain cost me.

 

[Rob Monster]

So you plan to fight the decision or not?

It would be mainly in the court of public opinion.

That said, if a capable domain lawyer wants to work with us on contingency to challenge the outcome in a civil proceeding, we'll happily let them bank 100% of the proceeds.

 

[DanSanchez]

Unbelievable, WIPO process is disgusting! The scariest thing about the panelist is his willingness to quote a random Godaddy valuation as a pretense for overvaluation and thus granting the transfer. I bet he only uses Godaddy when the price suits his argument.

One of the main reasons I NEVER quote prices until I know the person's willingness to engage in a voluntary and forceless negotiation is this sentence...

"showing an intent on the Respondent’s part to take unfair advantage of the Complainant" - That is not a criminal act like cybersquatting, it equates to the argument of "price gauging" in a market with increased demand and shortened supply. You can hear the tone deaf lawyer just siding with the "victim" while depriving a rightful owner of his property.

 

[Rob Monster]

We filed on time.

Case number is 2:20-CV-357-RSL

Judge Robert Lasnik presiding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington

Many thanks to @patents and @David Michaels for their assistance. Class acts. Blessings to both of them.

 

[jberryhill]

Will ICANN have to force Epiks hand to relinquish the domain?Does Epik have the option to file another lawsuit prior to relinquishing control? I'm basically wondering what is the proper procedure for contested UDRPs following a case judgement?

The UDRP and its rules are pretty simple, and follow the order of events.

The Policy is here:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en

The procedural Rules are here:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en

On top of that, each of the providers has their own supplemental rules for things like page limits, fees, etc., and WIPO has a fairly readable overview of common questions:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/

Most of the common questions on Namepros, for example, can be answered by consulting that Overview.

This proceeding has reached the highlighted point in UDRP 4(k):


k. Availability of Court Proceedings. The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded. If an Administrative Panel decides that your domain name registration should be canceled or transferred, we will wait ten (10) business days (as observed in the location of our principal office) after we are informed by the applicable Provider of the Administrative Panel's decision before implementing that decision. We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the location of our principal office or of your address as shown in our Whois database. See Paragraphs 1 and 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure for details.) If we receive such documentation within the ten (10) business day period, we will not implement the Administrative Panel's decision, and we will take no further action, until we receive (i) evidence satisfactory to us of a resolution between the parties; (ii) evidence satisfactory to us that your lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn; or (iii) a copy of an order from such court dismissing your lawsuit or ordering that you do not have the right to continue to use your domain name.

So, unpacking that into plain English:

If you get a UDRP decision ordering your name transferred, you have ten days in which to file a suit and notify the registrar. The registrar will not implement the UDRP decision, and will take no further action until they are informed that the parties have settled, or the case has been withdrawn, dismissed or decided.

can anybody who loses a WIPO UDRP file a lawsuit in their local jurisdiction simply to postpone relinquishing the domain and prolong their ownership?

No. Under the UDRP, when the Complainant files the Complaint, they get to choose at least one of two jurisdictions in which they will be subject to court action: (1) the location of the registrant, or (2) the location of the registrar. These options are reasonable, since the registrant is where they are, and the registrant also chose their registrar (and the jurisdiction of that registrar's terms of service). So, those are both jurisdictions to which the registrant has agreed.

Almost as if, appealing the decision, grants the domain owner more ownership time while leaving themselves open to a possible settlement option. So what's the risk type thinking...?

Well, there can be a considerable risk.

In the UDRP, the stakes are keeping or losing the domain name. If you go to litigation, then in many jurisdictions, such as the United States, the other side can bring claims of its own and seek monetary damages. Also, many jurisdictions have "loser pays" rules, so you shouldn't pick a fight you aren't prepared to finish.

In the US, if the other side shows up, and they often do, then you can pretty much count on the other side making affirmative claims against you under the ACPA. That happened in, for example, the Dent v. Lotto case:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4614444/dent-v-lotto-sport-italia-spa/

The domain registrant in that case has won a judgment entitling him to the domain name, the court has awarded some costs in his favor, and we are still awaiting a decision on $245k in fees.

In the VisitQatar.com case, not only did the other side file counterclaims against the domain registrant, but they brought along their friend, Qatar Airways, to make additional claims against the domain registrant. That case is awaiting a decision on whether the joinder of Qatar Airways was proper.

Sometimes, the other side doesn't show up. I have had two cases go that way as well.

But upping the ante from a UDRP to a court case certainly has risks. It's popular for people who don't know any better to hold the opinion that they'd rather fight a case in court than in the UDRP, but the fact of the matter is that the UDRP provides a relatively simple no-cost vehicle to at least present one's arguments in a timely and rational manner. But if one's "response" consists of making accusations against the dispute resolution provider instead of addressing the merits of the claim within the rules, then one is not going to do well. So it is worthwhile to take one's best shot at the UDRP level, without magically thinking that a court case is going to be simple or easy.

Coming back to the procedural status here, certainly the registrar is aware of the fact that the court dismissed the case without a judgment in favor of the domain registrant. So, under the UDRP, the registrar is obligated to implement the decision.

If the registrar does not implement the decision, then the complainant can notify ICANN, and ICANN will likely undertake a compliance inquiry. If the registrar is found to be non-compliant, that can be escalated to an arbitration proceeding between ICANN and the registrar. On the facts here, the registrar's general objection to the UDRP, WIPO, the panelist, etc., are not likely to carry much weight, since the registrar existence is premised on a contract with ICANN in which the registrar is required to implement the UDRP.

 

[Mister Funsky]

I wonder if there was any cash passed under the table?

In my responses I ALWAYS give a price and a time line. 48, 72 hours and sometimes ten days if it is a big sale. It is standard sales procedure to give a deadline for a deal. Also in my response to the low baller (assuming the first offer was low) I let them know the price has no where to go but up after my time period for purchase has passed.

The complainant clearly wanted to abbreviate their name...the clowns should have paid Rob his asking price in the first place. WIPO be clowns, yo.

 

[Rob Monster]

Here is our friendly UDRP Panelist:

https://www.kwm.com/en/au/people/john-swinson

It is not the first time that he has underwhelmed me. Perhaps this is the panelist when you want to secure a bullshit outcome for your UDRP complaint.

Who has further insight on Mr. Swinson?

 

[DanSanchez]

What was right thing to do?
If you don't do the right thing, then yes, I wish you to lose.

The price quoted previously is no longer valid once the other party leaves the table.

The only person not doing the right thing here is the one that resorted to violence and force to remove another person's property, likely at a higher time/capital cost than it was just to buy it voluntarily. How can you hope anyone loses? The right thing to do is to make profit to feed your family in a voluntary way, you seem to have the definitions completely backwards.

"Every man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. Each man must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

 

[Rob Monster]

Buyer no.2 makes an opening offer of $4200, which was the asking price for buyer no.1.
What are the odds of that happening?

When you get to the place in your life where you process 1000 emails per day, please let me know how you get along with keeping track of random emails from Domain Agents that you receive, spread out over an extended period while keeping up with your commitments and obligations that are more pressing than making a buck here or there. I can tell you for certain that I did not even bother to check what the prior offer was. I had a vague recollection of a prior offer and in a matter of seconds replied with a counter. I actually work harder on client offers than I do mine. Fancy that.

 

[jberryhill]

And, incidentally....

Same for tesla.com.

Do you know that the registrant of tesla.com had a lawyer?

Do you know who that lawyer is?

https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/547889.htm


PARTIES
Complainant is Tesla Industries, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brian A. Sullivan, Esquire of Werb and Sullivan, 300 Delaware Avenue, 13th Floor, PO Box 25046, Wilmington, DE 19899. Respondent is Stu Grossman d/b/a SG Consulting (“Respondent”), represented by John Berryhill, Esquire, 4 West Front Street, Media, PA 19063.


REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tesla.com>, registered with Gandi.

———-

So, I certainly don’t need any help being reminded that Tesla.com was registered by my client in 1992.

The car company did not exist when Tesla.com was registered. My client’s domain name was unsuccessfully challenged by another company named Tesla in a UDRP.

So, when the car company, formed in 2003, became interested in the domain name, they knew two things - (1) they could not win a dispute against the name which my client had eleven years before they existed, and (2) if they tried, they would be met with a competent defense.

That has nothing to do with registering IBM/consulting/update/assist .com - all of which keywords are certainly relevant to IBM’s business, and all of which were registered more than 100 years after IBM has been around.

Anyway, tune in mid-August for the next update, unless Rob filed sooner.

Got other questions? Post ‘em and see if you get lucky.

 

[jberryhill]

So, returning to the topic at hand, I guess the judge is also a corrupt corporate stooge or whatever.

Picking up on a loose end here:

It is not the first time that he has underwhelmed me. Perhaps this is the panelist when you want to secure a bullshit outcome for your UDRP complaint.

Who has further insight on Mr. Swinson?

I do. In the last couple of weeks, Mr. Swinson has issued two RDNH decisions against over-reaching trademark owners, and one of those cases was an LLLL.com case. This is what Mr. Swinson had to say in in the DSPA.com dispute:

----------------------------
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2020-1449

In this case, the Respondent has purchased the Disputed Domain Name from auction as a bona fide purchaser. There is no evidence that the Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name because of the Complainant. Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Complainant has not demonstrated a particular reputation in the Disputed Domain Name or that the four-letter string DSPA is uniquely associated with the Complainant. In fact the Respondent has, with dictionary evidence, demonstrated the contrary.

The Respondent has a portfolio of “four-letter” domain names. It appears that the Respondent is in the business of investing in and reselling four-letter domain names. A number of previous UDRP panels have found that as long as this kind of business is not infringing on a complainant’s rights in a mark, the Policy allows registration and use of domain names for this purpose.
---------------------------

The Respondent in that case filed a response rebutting the Complainant's argument, citing to the Policy and established decisions, and didn't spend a word of it impotently threatening the reputation of an international organization which does not give s--t what people say on a domain blog.

As far as background is concerned, Mr. Swinson is an adjunct professor of law at a university in Australia and a lawyer who works on various commercial issues.

As a UDRP panelist, he ranks third in number of panels to which he has been assigned:

(source: dndisputes.com)

So, let's take a look under the hood of those 495 decisions. As background, the overall case disposition over 20 years at WIPO looks like this:

Now, "terminated" cases don't get a panelist decision (the "others" include split decisions or oddball cases in which a panelist declined to issue a decision for stated reasons, such as an abstention in view of pending litigation).

So, taking "terminated" cases out of the total number of cases, the overall win/loss states are:

Transferred: 33,270 / (33,270 + 9,982 + 575 + 1,173) = 73.9 %

Complaint Denied: 9,982 / (33,270 + 9,982 + 575 + 1,173) = 22.2%

Stopping there for a moment, there are people who say "The Complainant wins nearly 3/4 of the time! That's not fair!"

I don't really understand that. In most criminal trials, for example, the defendant is found guilty. The reason for that is while, sure, sometimes there are things that go wrong, the people who are charged and tried for crimes aren't chosen at random.

The more rational way of looking at the UDRP is to consider that while there have been more than 33,000 disputes filed at WIPO over the course of 20 years, there are more than 140 MILLION domain names registered in .com alone. The likelihood of a domain name getting into a UDRP dispute at random is practically zero. As an aside, take those numbers into account if someone is trying to sell you "domain insurance".

The bottom line on that 73.9% figure is that I'm personally surprised it is that low. If lawyers are doing their job correctly, then that number should be much higher than that.

Back to Mr. Swinson, how does he stack up against a "generic" UDRP panelist:

Well, whaddya know. The win/loss ratio of his decisions are pretty much bang on average. If anything, he is slightly more favorable to Respondents than the average run of cases - finding for Complainants about .5% less often than the overall run of cases.

There is, however, one aspect of his decisions which diverge from average, and that is in the frequency with which he finds Reverse Domain Hi-Jacking.

For example, I have represented parties in the following cases in which Mr. Swinson was a panelist:

https://www.dndisputes.com/search?text=berryhill&panelist_name=swinson

dspa.com
Complaint denied with concurring opinion (RDNH)
WIPO D2020-1449 (Decision Date: Aug. 13, 2020)

cheapstuff.com
Complaint denied (RDNH)
WIPO D2020-1354 (Decision Date: July 14, 2020)

modz.com
Complaint denied (RDNH)
WIPO D2017-2008 (Decision Date: Dec. 21, 2017)

dky.com
Complaint denied (RDNH)
WIPO D2015-1757 (Decision Date: Dec. 15, 2015)

spritzer.com
Complaint denied (RDNH)
WIPO D2014-0557 (Decision Date: May 29, 2014)

simplybusiness.com
Complaint denied with dissenting opinion
WIPO D2010-2069 (Decision Date: March 1, 2011)

valerojobs.com
Transfer
WIPO D2008-0479 (Decision Date: May 27, 2008)

superfuzz.com
Complaint denied
WIPO D2006-1546 (Decision Date: March 9, 2007)

It is worth pointing out that in the valerojobs.com, the domain registrant had instructed me to offer to transfer the domain name to the complainant. The Complainant refused a voluntary transfer, and so the 'response' consisted of a request to have the domain name ordered to be transferred.

You'll also notice that the dky.com dispute was a straightforward LLL.com "domainer" case.

Other "acronym or short" domain cases he's decided are as follows:

https://www.dndisputes.com/search?decision=Complaint+denied&panelist_name=swinson

etg.com.au
hw.com.au
zut.com
lmc.com
mps.mobi

It may simply be that a reasoned response to a UDRP complaint strikes him as more compelling than an email in which:

"...does not fully address the elements of the Policy or contain the required certification (see paragraph 5(c)(viii) of the Rules). Moreover, it makes a number of needless derogatory remarks (and threats) about the UDRP and the Center."

I'm willing to bet that most UDRP panelists expect professional behavior from the CEO of an ICANN accredited registrar.

Indeed, this is something of a pattern, and it is not as if people don't pay attention to UDRP decisions, or conduct research into them when considering a case. For example:

--------------
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2019-1816

"The Registrar/Respondent communicated with the Center on numerous occasions, in some instances making disparaging remarks about the Complainant’s supposed trademark, UDRP, and settlement strategies, attaching UDRP decisions, providing links to blog posts and articles, and demanding that the Panel find the Complainant guilty of abusing the UDRP and attempting Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

...

The Registrar/Respondent is not a casual domain name investor but an accredited ICANN registrar operating a substantial domain name and website hosting business. It had additional time to consider a Response in this proceeding because of the extension for settlement discussions. If the Registrar/Respondent will not state reasons and offer evidence with a certification of accuracy and completeness, the Panel is entitled to draw adverse inferences.

The Panel notes that the Registrar/Respondent or its CEO have been named in many other UDRP proceedings in which they submitted no response (see below). The Registrar/Respondent would be well advised to speak up if it wants to be heard, or to change its practices if they are indefensible.

...

But it is troubling that the Respondent and its CEO Mr. Monster have been respondents in UDRP proceedings that they have neither disputed nor settled, with a similar pattern of exploiting domain names that were found not to have been simply descriptive terms, and sometimes with indications of the use of fake registrant details or cyberflight or a suspiciously delayed registrar lock similar to the post-complaint conduct in the current proceeding. See, e.g., Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. v. Domain Admin, Epik.com Private Registration / Brendan Waights, Biracay Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2017-1284 (transfer ordered, following PPC use of domain name; no response); France Billet v. Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2015-1641 (transfer ordered, following PPC use of domain name and cyberflight; no response); Legião Urbana Produções Artísticas Ltda. and Giuliano Manfredini v. Domain Admin, Epik.com Private Registration / Yoko Sayuri, WIPO Case No. D2013-1855 (transfer ordered, following PPC use; no response); Safra IP Holding CO v. Rob Monster, DigitalTown, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2018-1716 (transfer ordered, following parking and offering domain name for sale; no response); Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. v. Rob Monster, DigitalTown, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2018-1299 (transfer ordered following redirect to registrant’s website and offer to sell domain name; no response); Dürr Aktiengesellschaft v. Rob Monster, Digital Town, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2018-0757 (transfer of all five disputed domain names ordered following use for parking site with offers to sell; no response); Oscar Studio di Cavallin Oscar and 5282 S.R.L v. Rob Monster, WIPO Case No. D2014-2257 (transfer ordered following PPC use; no response). The Panel considers that this history, along with the Respondent’s post-complaint conduct in this proceeding, further supports an inference of bad faith within the meaning of the Policy."

And, again, have I received decisions with which I disagreed? Sure I have. That's normal. Any decision making system run by humans is fallible.

Also, like an emergency room, not all patients show up in the same condition. Some are in worse shape than others. If there is no plausible response, I will typically counsel prospective clients that their best move is to transfer the domain name under Rule 17, and move on. Sometimes, a prospective client might have a marginal defense on what are unlikely but true facts, but they want to defend the case.

So, sure, I've actually won some cases that I thought I would lose and have lost some cases that I thought I should win.

But consistently taking a combative attitude toward the UDRP providers and the process itself, while accumulating a growing list of adverse decisions is just not a sustainable strategy. Putting the work in on an actual UDRP defense which complies with the rules is also a LOT easier than looking for free legal help for a court case from which you are just going to walk away.

But the problem with this case had nothing to do with the panelist.

 

[mAd MaX]

It's rigged folks.

Nuff Said!

 

[Rob Monster]

@Rob Monster - I do wish, that folks like you, who have deep pockets, would mount a defense with an attorney and three panelists, no matter how inconsequential you see the loss to be. It is the principal.

Many of us have to let things go because we are not able to pay the cost of attorneys and three panelists.

To all the Millionaire domainers (yes, Rob, that includes you) - take one for the team and defend these frivolous actions.

For me, it is more about opportunity cost. ICYMI, we get a lot done in a day. However, as with the VisitQatar.com case, you can hire a good lawyer and still lose.

We do also hold the WIPO institution to a standard of due process and justice in their capacity as "small claims court for domains".

I think DNProtect.com will be a very good solution for these types of cases where the cost of defense is spread across many domains.

So, my solution is to deal with the root issues:

- Challenge WIPO's right to exist in the court of public opinion -- this is in progress and I appreciate the support to keep this thread prominent.

- Develop and launch DNProtect as an insurance product for domain risk management and legal defense -- this is already live with @bhartzer as product manager.

- Provide retail customers with better tools for finding and engaging with verified domain owners, e.g. WHOQ.com (beta), DNAdvocate.com (planning stage for domain dispute resolution).

Lose the battle. Win the war.

 

[pooky]

...a buyer with no trademark connection to the domain name came along offering to meet the Respondent’s own asking price, why would the Respondent not happily accept such payment but instead raise its asking price.) This further supports a finding of bad faith registration...

This is quite chilling. Some third party is going to decide what price you should have "happily" accepted as a domain owner.