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: MALO S.p.A. ( Italy )
Result: MALO S.p.A. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Italian law firm, Porta & Consulenti Associati S.p.A., represented MALO S.p.A., also of Italy, in its failed bid to use the UDRP arbitration process to reverse hijack the domain malo.com. A single-member panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on January 31, 2024.
Read More...Client: Fresh Brandz LLC ( Boca Raton, Florida, United States )
Result: Fresh Brandz LLC found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Lawyer Timothy Frailly represented the Florida-based teen cosmetics company, Fresh Brandz LLC, in its failed UDRP filing to acquire the domain freshkidz.com from its current registrant. A three-member panel of the National Arbitration Forum handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on March 4, 2024.
Read More...Client: Textron Innovations, Inc. ( Providence, Rhode Island, United States )
Result: Textron Innovations, Inc. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Jeremiah A. Pastrick represented Textron Innovations, Inc. in the company’s effort to swipe a pair of domains, hiobeech.com and bayareabeech.com, from their current registrant, a flight-school owner in Northern California. Sebastian M W Hughes, the sole panelist reviewing the case at the National Arbitration Forum, handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on […]
Read More...Client: Neurcog Pty Ltd ( Australia )
Result: Neurcog Pty Ltd found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
LegalVision ILP Pty Ltd represented Neurocog Pty Ltd, of Australia, in their attempt to hijack the domain name neurocog.com from its current registrant. The domain has been registered since 2011. A single-member panel at the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on May 6, 2024.
Read More...Client: SMARTCATCH ( France )
Result: SMARTCATCH found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Selari Oriamedia represented SMARTCATCH, of France, in their attempt to use the UDRP process to acquire the domain smartcatch.com. A three-member panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization ruled the complaint was an abuse of the UDRP arbitration process, labeling SMARTCATCH with an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The ruling was handed up May […]
Read More...