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: Auctane LLC ( United States )
Result: Auctane LLC found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Patrick J. Jennings, of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, represented Auctane LLC in its effort to use the UDRP process to steal the domain shipstation.ai. A ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking was handed up in the National Arbitration Forum on September 22, 2025.
Read More...Client: SCUTUM ( France )
Result: SCUTUM found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
French attorney Cornet Vincent Segurel represented a fellow French company, SCUTUM, in its failed UDRP bid to gain control of the domain scutum.com. A sole panelist for the World Intellectual Property Organization, W. Scott Blackmer, handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against SCUTUM on September 15, 2025.
Read More...Client: Royal Portrush Golf Club ( United Kingdom )
Result: Royal Portrush Golf Club found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Thorntons Law LLP represented the British golf club, Royal Portrush Golf Club, in its failed UDRP bid to transfer the disputed domain royalportrush.com from its registered owner. A three-member panel at the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against the golf club on September 13, 2025.
Read More...Client: Erik Harp ( Alabama, United States )
Result: Erik Harp found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Michael J. Douglas, from the Alabama-based law firm of Leak, Douglas & Morano, PC, represented Erik Harp in a failed bid to secure the domain goldrushdallas.com using the UDRP process. A single-member panel from the National Arbitration Forum handed up a ruling of RDNH against Mr. Harp on September 11, 2025.
Read More...Client: NeuBird, Inc. ( United States )
Result: NeuBird, Inc. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Todd Marabella, from the Massachusetts-based law firm of Goodwin Procter LLP, represented NeuBird, Inc. in its failed effort to use the UDRP process to force the transfer of the domain neubird.com from its registrant. A single panelist at the National Arbitration Forum handed up his ruling against NeuBird, Inc. on September 9, 2025.
Read More...