alert Penalty For Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

[larryscott2559]

SIGN THIS PETITION PLEASE!

When a rightful domain owner files a counter complaint of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and the complainant is found guilty of acting in bad faith, nothing happens. There is no disciplinary action to deter these types of company from abusing the system.

Please help me deter Reverse Domain Name Hijackers from trying to steal domains because they're too cheap to pay for the negotiated price. The legendary domainer Rick Schwartz created a website HallofShame.com to shame these people that operate in bad faith trying to steal domain names from the rightful owners. When found Guilty of RDNH, there is no punishment. I wanted to take it a step further and have a petition signed so a legislation is set in place to punish these types of people from operating in bad faith. Hopefully I can get Rick Schwartz to sign it as well considering we feel the same about the issue. Sign and share this. Please and thank you.

https://www.change.org/p/icann-penalty-for-reverse-domain-hijacking
https://www.change.org/p/icann-penalty-for-reverse-domain-hijacking

 

[Kuffy]

I thought the penalty was that your next complaint was likely to be chucked out because you had demonstated malicious intent.

 

[internext]

@larryscott2559

The legendary domainer Rick Schwartz created a website HallofFame.com to shame these people

You mean to say HallOfShame.com

 

[internext]

I signed, I'm #3. Would be nice to be able to see the list of signatures and the comments made. Is this hidden for some reason? I agreed to share my signature, so it must be available somewhere. Can you tell me how to view the list please?

 

[DNGear]

I did that too.. Thanks

 

[Kate]

I'm not in favor. UDRP is an arbitration procedure and should remain that way.

Also, it is incorrect to say there is no penalty: the UDRP fee is lost and the domain name is not awarded. Of course I can understand that some end users are seeing UDRP as a cheap lottery ticket to take over valuable domain names. But if you lose a UDRP it's usually because you've done something not smart.
I don't think UDRP is the proper venue. You can always sue later and file for damages. Telepathy have done it more than once.

PS: I know of at least one ccTLD registry (Belgium) that makes the losing party pay proceeding fees.
So this can be a double-edged sword. If you want to make it fair, then why not indemnify complainants when they win... TM holders are spending a lot of money unduly to defend their brands... for domains they don't even want.
When it comes to UDRP I think domainers are more often on the losing side and they would end up paying fines but seldom getting any compensation.

 

[larryscott2559]

@larryscott2559
You mean to say HallOfShame.com

Shit, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[larryscott2559]

I thought the penalty was that your next complaint was likely to be chucked out because you had demonstated malicious intent.

From what I know there is no punishment. Just an acknowledgement of RDNH which is pretty shitty.

 

[larryscott2559]

I signed, I'm #3. Would be nice to be able to see the list of signatures and the comments made. Is this hidden for some reason? I agreed to share my signature, so it must be available somewhere. Can you tell me how to view the list please?

I'm new to change.org I didn't know it was hidden I'll try to fix it when I get a chance to.

 

[Kingslayer]

Tbf there’s not really enough punishment for domainers who own domains in bad faith and knowingly register trademarks and that is more of a problem, many people proudly admit on NamePros that they do this and all that usually happens is they lose the domain and it costs the company who's trademark they are infringing on $1500+ to start a UDRP.

You go on about “the legend” Rick Schwartz, but he himself is clearly registering domains in bad faith, looking at his latest registrations on his site:-

http://domaingang.com/domain-news/w...wartz-been-registering-after-elections-ended/

ICANN won’t want to change anything too much either, although they will never ever admit it, they love UDRP’s, $1500+ per dispute, they’ve got a good thing going.

 

[larryscott2559]

I'm not in favor. UDRP is an arbitration procedure and should remain that way.

Also, it is incorrect to say there is no penalty: the UDRP fee is lost and the domain name is not awarded. Of course I can understand that some end users are seeing UDRP as a cheap lottery ticket to take over valuable domain names. But if you lose a UDRP it's usually because you've done something not smart.
I don't think UDRP is the proper venue. You can always sue later and file for damages. Telepathy have done it more than once.

PS: I know of at least one ccTLD registry (Belgium) that makes the losing party pay proceeding fees.
So this can be a double-edged sword. If you want to make it fair, then why not indemnify complainants when they win... TM holders are spending a lot of money unduly to defend their brands... for domains they don't even want.
When it comes to UDRP I think domainers are more often on the losing side and they would end up paying fines but seldom getting any compensation.

I'm going to look into what you said about Telepathy. As far as the fees paid for that's not punishment its required whether the complainant win or lose. Some of these entities are operating in bad faith to avoid the sellers cost. As an arbitration source if the UDRP can rule and make a domain owner give away his domain name they should be able to punish those who are trying to beat the system. Anything will help besides just acknowledging that the complainant is guilty.
,

 

[larryscott2559]

Tbf there’s not really enough punishment for domainers who own domains in bad faith and knowingly register trademarks and that is more of a problem, many people proudly admit on NamePros that they do this and all that usually happens is they lose the domain and it costs the company who's trademark they are infringing on $1500+ to start a UDRP.

You go on about “the legend” Rick Schwartz, but he himself is clearly registering domains in bad faith, looking at his latest registrations on his site:-

http://domaingang.com/domain-news/w...wartz-been-registering-after-elections-ended/

ICANN won’t want to change anything too much either, although they will never ever admit it, they love UDRP’s, $1500+ per dispute, they’ve got a good thing going.

It wouldn't effect that part of their business, It only applies when the respondent files the counter complaint of RDNH which is not that often.

 

[Kate]

Tbf there’s not really enough punishment for domainers who own domains in bad faith and knowingly register trademarks and that is more of a problem, many people proudly admit on NamePros that they do this and all that usually happens is they lose the domain and it costs the company who's trademark they are infringing on $1500+ to start a UDRP.

This is debatable, but this is why I think the proposal put forward here is not fair. TM holders are spending a lot of money and prevail 90% of the time. If anything, they should be compensated for their trouble. Why should domainers be entitled to one-way protection ?
BTW I am an end user and a TM holder too.

ICANN won’t want to change anything too much either, although they will never ever admit it, they love UDRP’s, $1500+ per dispute, they’ve got a good thing going.

I don't think Icann benefits from UDRPs in any way, they are handled by panelists from Wipo or the other regional arbitration centers. I am not even sure domain disputes are very profitable.

 

[larryscott2559]

In open court if a lawyer filed a suit that had no basis, it would be considered "Malicious Prosecution", a criminal offense. Which is the same act being done by RDNH. Why should there be no punishment, because its the internet?

 

[nacho]

Why can't you bring a separate case against them for theft?

 

[Wannabean]

There is a tendency to report only on a very small number of cases. Most of these are grand injustices, making them interesting and therefore news worthy.

If a penalty is to be introduced it should work both ways. Be careful what you wish for.

I'm also guessing that most people get their their info on udrp from domaining type blogs and community members. This is going to skew reporting.

 

[lennco]

@Kate

How would you feel about a few changes like,

No more one judge panel, All cases decided by a 3 judge panel.
Instead of $1500 filing fee raise it to $3000

I think having 3 judges would make it more fair for everyone involved.
And raising it to $3000 would help pay for the 3 judge panel and might also stop many frivolous fillings.

 

[platey]

Abasically the domain name industry is still in the very early stages of existence in the grand scheme of things and this thread is evidence to that in as much that the buying and selling of its products eg domain names should be the bare basics

if only 1% of the population allegedly own domain names and yet the industry struggles to work out and or prevent domains that are not fit for purpose from being bought the domain industry has a long way to go yet

the legal fraternity should work for icann within icann to prevent domains that cannot be bought from being bought and thus establishing much more simple buying process knowing that every domain name advertised for sale can be purchased and either used and or resold etc

and if this means that domain names become a little more expensive then so be it

domain name i insurance should bday compulsory with every domain name purchased to protect both the buyer and seller and as result the industry will grow much faster and prices achieved will increase significantly on the digital high st

 

[larryscott2559]

KingslayerVR you wrote: "Tbf there’s not really enough punishment for domainers who own domains in bad faith and knowingly register trademarks and that is more of a problem, many people proudly admit on NamePros that they do this and all that usually happens is they lose the domain and it costs the company who's trademark they are infringing on $1500+ to start a UDRP."

This is my central goal. I just didnt know that RDNH werent punished so I wanted to at least try to change that and see how domainers feel about it. But to rid of cybersquatters is my main goal even though I may not be popular for it. Metrocard.com is a trademark and sold for $5,500 through Namescon. Facebook.to not too long ago sold for $8,000. Cybersquatting generates money but its still trademark infringement.

FYI: I was a cybersquatter with about 61 typosquatting domains and other trademark infringement domain names that have openly admitted it. 30 or more of these domains are now redirecting back to the trademark owner or now expired.

 

[SiteMac]

I signed it

 

[Kate]

And raising it to $3000 would help pay for the 3 judge panel and might also stop many frivolous fillings.

I think filing a UDRP is already expensive enough. Put yourself in the shoes of TM holders. They spend a lot of money just to defend their brands, to take down domains they don't even want.
Of course, the big companies can afford the costs, but they shouldn't have to. For small businesses a UDRP is not cheap. The price is a deterrent. I hope I will never have to file one, but it's something I know could happen. I develop brands, I do domain monitoring and I am proactive.

The thing is, the vast majority of UDRPs are won and therefore do not seem to be frivolous. And the majority are clear-cut cases, there is no benefit to a 3-member panel. One is sufficient. But either party can always pay for three, the option is available.

The only problem is when valuable domains are targeted, because some people are seeing UDRP like a cheap lottery ticket to take over valuable domains. But you can always sue in court for monetary damages (again, it's been done).
I don't think UDRP panels should become enforcement agencies, tracking down registrants worldwide to enforce payments of the 'fines', this will increase costs and add bureaucracy.

I repeat myself, but icann are doing enough of a mess (the new transfer policy being a good example), and they know how to fix what ain't broken. If they see this thread they will certainly want to 'enhance' it but not like you would want: they will make squatters pay. So if you want to make it fair, then the losing party should always pay the costs associated with the complaint. Why only the complainant should be fined and not the squatter ? This is not fair at all in my view.

 

[larryscott2559]

I signed it

Thanks!


For those of you that are interested I had email the legendary domainer Rick Schwartz about this issue and he forwarded my email to one of his buddies suggesting the petition be placed on HallofShame.com. I have yet to hear anymore about this or seen a link to the petition on the site yet but If you do see it please share it.