UDRP not the right direction in some cases

[Eric Lyon]

Apparently people are still using the UDRP process the wrong way.

A three member panel just affirmed what we pretty much knew already that the UDRP is not a proper forum for the recovery of allegedly stolen domain names.

In this case, Austin Rare Coins, Inc. brought the UDRP to recover 8 domain names they alleged were stolen by a Hoa Nguyen.

The domains at issues were:
acoins.com
austinreport.com
goldcoins.org
goldinfo.ne
goldprices.com
rarecoins.com
rarecoins.org
silverinfo.net

The panel rejected the Austin’s claim that they had common law trademark rights in the domains due to previous usage of the domain names for several years even through the domain holder did not even respond to the complaint.

The panel did find that the complainant had a registered trademark on the one domain AustinReport.com and ordered that domain name transferred back to the complainant

Here are the relevant facts and findings by the panel

Read the full article here

 

[Dave_Z]

Depends on the case, though:

http://www.namepros.com/legal-issues-and-disputes/510822-2-potentially-laughable-udrps.html

If the domain name is indeed stolen and the registrars just won't "help" the domain owner, what other choice does he have that won't necessarily cost as much as filing a lawsuit?

Of course, the UDRP is intended to resolve no-brainer cybersquatting cases. Yet, anything can be used and abused depending on the situation.

 

[tech4]

Gold info, gold prices, rare coins, ---> Its hard to say those belong to someone. Everyone use those terms. I agree with UDRP on this one.

It would not make sense if anyone holding Goldprices.com be handed over to a specific organization. Unless it was stolen. It should be easy to prove its stolen?

Anyone with insight, are those domains stolen? or just claims made? They claim "unlawfully seized the domains to harass customers". Doesn't make sense. Someone let me in on that?