Latest Reverse Hijacking Decision - Decal.com

[Dave_Z]

Congrats to both John B and Greg on this one:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0585.html

One thing that makes this sweet? John did it with one panelist. :D

 

[labrocca]

Morons. Great job Mr. Berryhill once again.

 

[npcomplete]

...snip...
However: If a respondent is using a generic word to describe his product/business or to profit from the generic value of the word without intending to take advantage of complainant’s rights in that word, then it has a legitimate interest.”
...snip...
The Complainant should have known its case was fatally weak, in relation to the second and third elements of the Policy. It seems plain that the Complainant, had it properly understood what was required, would have understood that it could not make its case.
...snip...
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. The Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and thus constitutes reverse domain name hijacking.

excellent decision. Just out of curiosity: Does the finding of reverse domain name hijacking have any impact in seeking legal remedy for respondent?

 

[jberryhill]

Morons.

Big time.

 

[namenut]

Not even close ..... Two years prior on the reg. Goog search in ES but omits the US results. I mean at best the complaintant might have seen a decal of a competitor. You've gotta love that JB counter with the bad faith claim and got it. Google.es ..... lol

A couple of questions I have is.... even with the reg being two years prior would respondant's position have suffered if domain was parked for PPC? And would the keyword and ad results played a factor? (relevant to complaintants TM) And would archive.org had shown a better history reflecting parking period and nature of ads?

JB strikes again!

namenut

 

[flamewalker]

namenut: Since its a generic/descriptive term, in the US which is where the com registry is, they would still have one hell of a time convincing them that they should get the name. Especially with JB behind it

Not impossible but improbable to the point of impossibility imho... so imho little to no effect. UNLESS... they parked it and pointed it to show ads related to their business ("storage facilities for oil and petrochemical products")... which is just idiotic imho use of such a descriptive term.

 

[Idees]

A great decision was made.

 

[MaguirePhD]

jberryhill

Nice work.

Doc

 

[mathiasc]

sweet. nicely done.

 

[duceman]

I had totally forgot that i reged ReverseHijack.com last year :lol:

 

[Kate]

It costs money just to fight against these people...

 

[mwzd]

Was there some monetary reward for the reverse hijacking finding?

I assume legal fees etc would have been covered by the complainant.

Congrats jberryhill and greg! Well fought and won, keep raising the bar against such frivolous legal actions.

 

[klm390]

Was there some monetary reward for the reverse hijacking finding?

I assume legal fees etc would have been covered by the complainant.

What are the repercussions for a bad faith complaint and being found to have attempted reverse hijacking?

 

[npcomplete]

Was there some monetary reward for the reverse hijacking finding?

I assume legal fees etc would have been covered by the complainant.

Congrats jberryhill and greg! Well fought and won, keep raising the bar against such frivolous legal actions.

Same question I had a few posts earlier in the thread... and would love to hear the answer.

If a finding of reverse hijacking has no meaning other than a "shame on you" note in a file at wipo for somebody that will never again be involved with wipo then that is hardly a legal remedy for somebody that had to hire the *best* domain lawyer on the net (JB) to defend their rights. Do wipo findings of reverse hijacking have any weight in following suits to recover legal fees? IANAL. Is there any case law where a civil suit cites wipo findings of reverse hijacking?

 

[Kate]

Was there some monetary reward for the reverse hijacking finding?

I assume legal fees etc would have been covered by the complainant.

No way with the UDRP.

 

[labrocca]

No way with the UDRP.

They could stipulate that if the respondant is going to make a reverse hijacking case the complaintant has to fork over additional funds to cover the fees of the respondant IF he wins and does get the reverse hijacking win.

It's a small change but it shouldn't be prohibitive to larger companies. It would also prevent a lot of these reverse hijacking scenarios if now they have to pay for both fees.

It can be done.