Below is our current list of those inducted into the Hall of Shame or found guilty of trying to Reverse Hijack a Domain Name in which they had no legal rights. In other words they tried to bully the rightful owners into relinquishing their property and forcing these innocent parties to spend thousands to defend what they already own. Since there is no Legal Penalty, we are determined to Shame these companies along with their attorneys that represent them. What can you do? Tweet, Like, Circulate! Help me, Help you!
Case Number: Case #35
Represented by: Moray & Agnew, Australia
adjudicate.org.au – The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au. Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online Advice, WIPO Case No. D2003-0297 states that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if the Complainant “knew or should have known at the time […]Read More...
Case Number: Case #34
Represented by: Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates
BSA.com – Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates. The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name. It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP. It […]Read More...
Case Number: Case #33
Represented by: Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone
Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking: “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive […]Read More...
Case Number: Case #32
Represented by: Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America
xPand.com – The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. “The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint […]Read More...
Case Number: Case #31
Represented by: Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota
3dCafe.com – Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds “Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.”Read More...
My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to write about and circulate. The reality is I will write every company and their representation every single time there is a case of RDNH. To fight back we had to create HallofShame.com to get the message across to Main Street and Main Stream. Now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table in good faith instead of being labeled forever on Hall of Shame. The net is written in ink! And now a monument has been built at a common crossroads that many more folks will see. Just like being in Times Square.