Reverse Hijacking?

[WirelessZOO]

We registered a name in April 2000 in the media space, with plans to launch a firm providing solutions in the media space. The dot com burst etc. followed and due to lack of funds we have been waiting for years to launch our venture...till date.

In 2001 another firm came along and renamed itself with that name, they also got the name trademarked in late 2001. They built a brand around this name -they have about $20 Million in funding..most of which they have burned thru...we think.

In mid 2005 ..after threatening us for months they have started building a case with a crass response we wrote, some remote connection to one of our other sites (not related to their business) and claim they are the rightful owners..of the trademark hence the dot com name..this is a joke..some of the wipo/arbforum judgements seem to go such people way..

I hear they call this the Reverse Highjacking process?

Any comments or suggestions please?

 

[Joey]

I don't know what "reverse hijacking" is; but I believe you are the rightful owner of the domain as you registered it before the name was trademarked.

 

[Keynes]

If you registered the name before their TM, as it sounds like you did, then you should have a strong case. Don't let them strong arm you -- if the name is rightfully yours, you should consult an attorney and go over some documents outlining your position if necessary.

 

[WirelessZOO]

Thanks for the responses...attorney costs are having us hold off on retaining one..we hope to write up a good response on our own since we cant afford one.

 

[Dave_Z]

Rightful owner of the domain name...there's something truly "seductive" about
domain names that make some parties believe such...

Contact internetjustice.org or publiccitizen.org if you can't afford an attorney.

 

[WirelessZOO]

Thanks Dave - I will look those links up..real goons these people - after pounding me for months - they are now sending these legal notices that has me up at night..

BTW: In public/google records with arbforum I have one case that went against me (I made my share of mistakes in late 90's) - strangely in that case they referenced all my mistakes (I was after a series of MyXXXXX.com names with trademarks) - it was a silly mistake..

Hope "once a thief always a thief" does not apply..

If I could afford it I would definitely engage [email protected] - check out his website and his profile - he was kind enough to respond as follows:

Actually, UDRP decisions tend to go in favor of the domain registrant where the subject domain is registered prior to the tm application or use, since it is impossible to prove bad faith registration in such case, a required element the tm owner must prove.

Best regards,

Ari

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
Raj
http://www.WirelessZOO.com

 

[DNQuest.com]

In this case, if the facts are truely as you present them, they are trying to reverse hijack the domain. If they were not in exsistance when the domain was registered, they are out of luck. They are trying to strong arm you, don't give in. Tell them reverse hijacking does have penalties and you have a strong civil suit against them for harassment.