WIPO gives hijacked LLL.com back

[Embrand]

Quite an interesting WIPO decision. The domain rcw.com was apparently hijacked from its original owner some years ago, but now has to be returned:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0386.html

 

[tinner666]

Good!

 

[holyroller]

Quite an interesting WIPO decision. The domain rcw.com was apparently hijacked from its original owner some years ago, but now has to be returned:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0386.html

A lot of these WIPO decisions seem strange, they don't seem to double check a lot of the facts. For example the company setup in 1997 and claims it registered the name in 1998. True is was registered then, but it was infact forsale and they didnt in fact use the domain till 2001. Why would they offer the domain forsale if it was there company initials? They claim it was hyjacked in 2006 by unknown means, yet there site is still on the domain for a year after this. It would be interesting to see what the whois records say.
THey may be telling the truth, but it interesting they don't seem to have to prove there claims. The are a lot of companies that actually use RCW in there name or it is there company name.

 

[Peter]

Prior to november 2006 the whois address was:-

Domain Name.......... rcw.com
Creation Date........ 1998-04-22
Registration Date.... 2000-10-26
Expiry Date.......... 2006-04-21
Organisation Name.... Regan Campbell Ward
Organisation Address. 381 Park Ave S
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. New York
Organisation Address. 10016
Organisation Address. NY
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

In november 2006 it changed to:-

Registrant:
Site Services International
Richard Sorensen ([email protected])
112 Woodall Rodgers Freeway
Dallas
Texas,75207
US
Tel. +1.5146570280

Checked the whois data up until 2k8 and it stayed this way.

 

[Embrand]

Hmm, it does seem strange it took complainant almost two years to file a complaint... On the other hand I guess the respondent didn't help himself by not replying in the case.

 

[holyroller]

Hmm, it does seem strange it took complainant almost two years to file a complaint... On the other hand I guess the respondent didn't help himself by not replying in the case.

Maybe because he didn't change the nameservers they didn't notice. How many of us would notice if the whois information was changed on a domain and it still pointed to the same parking or site nameservers, especially if we didn't receive notification of the change. I only have about 200 domains, but I dont regularly check all the whois info is correct or hasn't been changed.

 

[Embrand]

Maybe because he didn't change the nameservers they didn't notice. How many of us would notice if the whois information was changed on a domain and it still pointed to the same parking or site nameservers, especially if we didn't receive notification of the change. I only have about 200 domains, but I dont regularly check all the whois info is correct or hasn't been changed.

Yeah, that is true... I would probably not be aware of it myself if I were the owner.

 

[Dave_Z]

but it interesting they don't seem to have to prove there claims.

In UDRP, the important thing is to prove all 3 points. But it's up to the panelist
if they'll accept alleged hijacking as proof of bad faith.

It's happened in about 2 or 3 other decisions. And yes, it tremendously helped
the complainant that the respondent didn't reply.