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: Chai Research Corp. ( Texas )
Result: Chai Research Corp. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Kim Boyle, who works with the Texas law firm of Richard Law Group, Inc., represented Chai Group Corp. in its UDRP complaint against a competitor, in an effort to gain control of the domain chai.new. A single-member panel at the National Arbitration Forum handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Hijacking on August 7, 2025.
Read More...Client: Nuvik USA Inc. ( )
Result: Nuvik USA Inc. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Mandelbaum Barrett PC, a U.S.-based law firm, with offices across several states, represented Nuvik USA Inc. in its UDRP filing with the World Intellectual Property Organization, which was aimed at gaining the transfer of the domain nuvik.com. The sole panel member deciding the arbitration case handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against […]
Read More...Client: Alba Edible Oils Pty Ltd ( Australia )
Result: Alba Edible Oils Pty Ltd found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Bennett Litigation and Commercial Law represented the Australian cooking-oil manufacturer, Alba Edible Oils Pty Ltd, in a UDRP filing with the World Intellectual Property Organization, aimed at taking control of the domain albaoil.com.
Read More...Client: Blunomy Advisory ( France )
Result: Blunomy Advisory found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Maître Dubois is an attorney based in France who represented the French consulting firm of Blunomy Advisory in its UDRP filing to gain control of the domain blunomy.com. A single-person panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization, Vincent Denoyelle, handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Blunomy Advisory on July 29, 2025.
Read More...Client: Corcreevy Pty Ltd ( Australia )
Result: Corcreevy Pty Ltd found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Bennett Litigation and Commercial Law represented the Australian construction-supply firm of Corcreevy Pty Ltd in its failed UDRP action to deprive an investor if the domain tyrone.com. A three-member panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on July 28, 2025.
Read More...