The job of the attorney is not to be part of a hijacking and actually Aid and Abet. It's the job of the attorney to educate their client or fire their client. Explain the self inflicted damage that can be done to them, their company, their brand, you as an attorney and the firm you work for. HallofShame will now begin to list you as the attorney and the firm you represent. It will be a stain you cannot remove and it will be all self inflicted because you knew better!
Aid and Abet? Make no mistake, the panels today are not ignorant. The attorney is the mastermind of the hijacking as well as the driver of the car the way I see it given what we know now. You have been hired as a contract hit man so to speak but the hit is not on a person, it is on property. Your client is in the back seat directing you and paying you to help him hijack a domain name when your real job is to protect him. The moment you go along with that scheme, you are just as guilty because you know what you are doing. It is premeditated. You are just as guilty aren't you Mr. Attorney?? If not, why not? I have read the decisons and the panels have been brutal when they get lied to. When lawyers and their clients fabricate accusations and get caught doing it!
Wrong minded? Outrageous? Over the top? ok fine. I may be guilty of bad taste. How does that measure up against being found guilty of Reverse Hijacking a domain name by the govering panel? Worth the gamble of ending up here at HallofShame.com and then what? Blame me? Threaten ME!?
All I am suggesting is you better be on solid ground when you hit somebody with a WIPO or NAF action. Your choice and just remember that Your Name will be included in the fallout. It's not up to you and it is not in your control once you are found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Client: Procter and Gamble ( USA )
Result: Procter and Gamble was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent […]Read More...