FMA got LH.com again?

[owntype]

You may have read the news or threads that Lufthansa has taken LH.com from FMA via UDRP.

The whois info/NS has been modified to Lufthansa's a few weeks ago.

But I checked today, it has been changed back to FMA's.

So FMA got LH.com again? Any updates on this case?

Thanks :kickass:

 

[fonzie_007]

You get the "fast track" when you file for injunctions.

 

[dotnom]

I would urge you not to send on pm's like this. Last thing he wants is to be bombarded by pm's. If he chooses to let people know what is going on he will do it under his own accord.

I would fully agree if this was just for informational purposes
I contact some owners for the purchase of one at least LL.com and i worry for this outcome

The last thing i want is to bug people when they feel stressed

I completely agree. Don't bug people if they don't want to be bugged.
PS Mod may want to move this to the "legal" section of the forum to prevent bots from scanning this thread.

1. I agree with what you agree. I explained before why

2. The legal section has a robot exclusion setting ?
I see only this to the txt Disallow: /adserver/

 

[fonzie_007]

My understanding is that you have to be a member to view the legal section and that bots do not crawl those threads.

 

[sashas]

For one thing, it was Elequa and FMA, who've got pretty deep pockets themselves to fight this in court. Some other individual might not have been able to get it back

 

[jberryhill]

There is a pending federal lawsuit over the name, which was filed before the UDRP decision was made. Accordingly, the registration data remains locked in the condition it was when the suit was filed.

 

[dotnom]

Thanks for the legal update jberryhill

This case is certainly the first that will define the freedom or not of short/generic names
If it will fail at the end maybe will open the appetite of other big firms to do the same

As you're in the legal profession maybe it will be good to ask if there is any kind of security for the rest of LL/LLL.coms
Is there anything we can do as domainers to be protected from these weird claims ?

(if this is offtopic please open a new topic)

 

[jberryhill]

This case is certainly the first that will define the freedom or not of short/generic names

Why? You didn't like the Cello case?

 

[dotnom]

As the time pass i see even shorter and more generic names to be the target of reverse hijacking

I didn't know of the cello case
I tried to search it at wipo
I don't know if i found the right url

 

[Dave_Z]

This case is certainly the first that will define the freedom or not of short/generic names

Unfortunately it doesn't, dotnom. These things are treated case to case, and
one decision won't necessarily influence the outcome of another.

Here are some links on the cello.com dispute:

http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0506.htm

http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1128040

http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cach...f+cello.com+dispute&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=ph

 

[dotnom]

I see elequa in the topic right now and i wanted to express my support as i did in my PM too

 

[Michael]

Good luck elequa, we're all rooting for you :tu:

 

[fonzie_007]

Unfortunately it doesn't, dotnom. These things are treated case to case, and
one decision won't necessarily influence the outcome of another.

Here are some links on the cello.com dispute:

http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0506.htm

http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1128040

http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cach...f+cello.com+dispute&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=ph

First time I have read that case. Talk about a train wreck. The decision is wrong on two fronts. Nothing like the judicial activism of a UDRP panelist snubbing his nose at the the jurisdiction (or lack thereof) of the US District Court.