BREAKING!! Former CEO of Procter and Gamble During Swash.com Reverse Hijacking set to be Named Obama V.A. Secretary!

Afternoon Folks!!

In just a few minutes President Obama is set to nominate Bob McDonald to head the Department of Veteran Affairs whom you might remember was the CEO of Procter and Gamble when they were convicted of trying to reverse hijack the domain name Swash.com.

In what was I believe the greatest shakeup in 100 years at Procter and Gamble when then CEO Bob McDonald and his nearly entire army of executives were forced to step down.  I contend it was over the Swash.com Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision as a final straw in which I wrote about extensively. Below is that exact post.

But I also called for his resignation as you can read below as well back in March of 2013:

 

Morning Folks!!

I am not happy that Procter and Gamble has been found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking but I am going to milk this story for every ounce it is worth and it may take me YEARS to do it. When it comes to Domain Names, Procter and Gamble was a guiding light in my book. Great respect because they figured it out. Even tho I vaguely recall them dumping a bunch of domains years ago. I think I might have gotten 1 or 2.

Reverse domain name hijacking (also known as reverse cybersquatting), occurs where a trademark owner attempts to secure a domain name by making false cybersquatting claims against a domain name's rightful owner. In this case not only did P&G make false claims, they also lied outright to the governing panel and got caught!

See when I started, P&G was already out there getting domain names or soon thereafter. So they understood about domain names very early. It is that reason that what they did is particularly troubling. I always liked and respected Procter and Gamble because they always moved well with the time and of course I like everyone else use a lot of their products. But all our lives. All my parents lives. All my grandparents lives and half of the life's of their parents before them. Whew!

They are the warm and fuzzy company that gave us many soap operas and toothpaste and all types of other things we use each and every day. They perfected the TV commercial long before any of us were even in the game or born. So it makes me sad to learn one of my heroes is now a would-be thief had the other party not fought back and exposed their fraud! Well done John Berryhill!

Who made that decision? Who was responsible for P&G overstepping in this outrageous manner? So outrageous that a 3 member panel called them out in a way I don't think I have seen before. Saveme.com case had very strong language. But this language seemed to be harsher in tone. I guess it is open to interpretation. But maybe because it was slapping a business giant as if he had no more standing than you and me. BRAVO!!

I am not mad at them. I am going to use Procter and Gamble to make many points over the next YEARS! Let companies KNOW if P&G is convicted of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, you will be too if you engage in this despicable act. But I would just as well have them tell the story. I'd like to ask why a company worth billions would STAIN their reputation with this act that the common man would find appalling? Why would they not just come to an agreement with the owner? Now they pay the price and the price is priceless. How stupid is that??

I am angry, upset and most of all disappointed in a company that wrote the book on marketing and other things. They were true leaders of an era. Of many eras.

So what MORONIC company wants to be NEXT!!?? Who made the decision to do this? Why did they do it? What transpired that allowed them to risk so much for so little?? That's what I really don't get.

I am very disappointed. I am still going to use their products but they can't force me to look at their company the same ever again. These companies are playing with fire.

Maybe they should do some research into history and see what some little old ladies did to big companies that tried to build malls where their homes were located. This is akin to that. But in an age like this news flies and it is in ink.

Some SCHMUCK working at SOME DEPARTMENT at Procter and Gamble, decided it was worth GAMBLING the reputation of a 172 year old company. 135,000 employees. $79 BILLION in sales in 80 countries. And they had to try and muscle some guy with a domain? What would you call that Mr. CEO of Procter and Gamble?? I CHALLENGE you Mr. McDonald to come to our trade show and explain it to this audience and the wider audience? I CHALLENGE YOU!!??

Wow! What a HUGE blunder. What have you learned? Are you going to use the same tactics again? Are you pissed at me? Maybe you should be pissed but I am not the one you should be pissed at. I would be pissed at the person, department or firm that put the reputation of your 172 year old company on the line and LOST!!??

Besides all this your company, P & G, was found to misrepresent facts to the panel. Nice touch! Were you personally involved in that decision? You should RESIGN TODAY if you were. This is all my personal as well as professional opinion. I'll assume you were not involved in a low level decision that was this stupid and worse.

What say you Mr. McDonald? Personally I am just disappointed that a company I have always looked up to would stoop to this. I am sorry for the bluntness of this post but our industry has suffered from corporate bullies for nearly 20 years and this time the giant of em all went down and went down very hard. Very hard! A company that otherwise has been very wise in their domains and how they have conducted themselves. But now this STAIN and none of your STAIN REMOVERS will be effective on this.

Mr. Berkens points out that your folks LIED to the panel when your company said they did $40 Million in business on the 'swash' product.

“The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000.”

“When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled under USD 60,000.”

Most importantly Mr. Berkens points out one last thing:

Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.

So your company LIED Mr. McDonald in an effort to STEAL a domain that belongs to another company, Marchex, which just as easily could have been some mom and pop in Iowa that could not defend themselves and let you have the domain. You now join our 'Hall of Shame' and each time somebody is convicted of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, we repost the entire list. Congrats!

So let me ask you directly Mr. McDonald, How many domains has your company gotten that it had to LIE about? Or that they had to make folks spend money they did not have to defend what was rightfully theirs and is now yours? Tell us that. Isn't that a fair question in light of what has happened? Maybe you should WANT to find out. WANT to make it right. If I have something wrong, please let me know.

Sir, I have been doing this for 18 years and what your company did is troubling and it is something that we as risk takers have had to UNFAIRLY endure. There is a free market place. Use it, don't abuse it. Right now you and your 172 year old company have to live with this. It probably means nothing to you but it may mean the WORLD to somebody else. So to get our message out we need to SHAME companies that engage in this abuse as there is no penalty for what we just saw happen. They just walk away.

McdonaldBob McDonald. CEO since 2009

Here is a list of Procter and Gamble Products. The asterisk are their *Billion Dollar Brands*. Come on Mr. McDonald. What say you about this? You sound like a stand up guy that served your country and company well. You have been with the company for 33 years. Don't you want to get to the bottom of this as well? Who put the companies good name in jeopardy for this? Who lied? What idiot is responsible? Marketing? Legal? Finance? Who? How many? Why would you allow this embarrassment to occur again or are you too big to be embarrassed? Any other abuse in the name of your 172 year old company. I sure as hell would want to know if I were in your position.

So we are forced to use Procter and Gamble as an example to sway the next MORON or the next company not to get involved with this despicable act of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Help us do that Mr. McDonald and you will find an ally and we can call it a great day!

And as I read the history of the company I stopped as it described the 'Joint Venture' that started this company back in 1837. Wonder what Mr. Procter and Mr. Gamble would have done given the same circumstance? Before they even had billions? My instinct says they would have acted in a different manner and somebody there violated a 172 year old trust just because he or she was a cheap bastard that played fast and loose with the facts and refused to pay either fair market value or find an alternative.

Regretfully,

Rick Schwartz

http://www.ricksblog.com/2013/06/proctr-gambles-biggest-management-shakeup-in-100-years/#.U7GX4xYtQ6I

 

And here is the original post on the hijacking:

http://www.ricksblog.com/2013/03/reverse-domain-hijacking-and-the-virtual-scarlett-letter/#.U7GaOBYtQ6I

 

Morning Folks!!

Let's not minimize or maximize the Reverse Domain Name hijacking (RDNH) decision that came down against Procter and Gamble (P&G) over Swash.com back in March. But for a stellar company like P&G it is a black eye they should have never gotten.

So lets just deal with a few facts. This was what I wrote about the fallout back then.

This was my open letter to the CEO Bob McDonald that followed.

That was besides personally contacting each and every communications director for a comment without a single response.

But let's look and see what has happened in the days since. Exactly 90 days if you are counting.

The CEO, Mr.McDonald, steps down "effective immediately" at the beginning of Memorial Day weekend on May 23rd.  "Robert McDonald's four-year struggle to adapt Procter & Gamble Co. to a new world of more frugal consumers and tougher global competition has come to an abrupt end."

bobceo

Did "Frugal" (another word for CHEAP) include giving him or those that report to him the order to try and grab Swash.com?

But that is not all. Then just DAYS later P&G announces "Organization changes". MASSIVE changes. I then asked myself when in my lifetime did I ever see a shakeup like this at Procter and Gamble and I just can't remember one. Can you? They even picked the former ceo A.G. Lafley to get the compnay back on track. Both men in the industry for well in excess of 30 years.

lafleyjpg-4c2b2efd654c4661
A.G. Lafley. Chairman, CEO, President

Straw that broke the camels back? I guess we will never know. But it was a straw and that STAIN remains with this company FOREVER! It happened and somebody in their organization made a very costly and unfortunate mistake. A mistake that could rise to the level of ending a career.

So as domain name investors this is a case we can point other would-be hijackers to which will let them know that no company no matter how big or small are immune to a decision like this and the repercussions that come both personally and professionally. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.

Have a GREAT Day!

Rick Schwartz

All that said, and without being too political, I certainly wish him well in trying to fix the problems that loom at the V.A. that really has a lot of people upset across the political spectrum.

Procter and Gamble’s Biggest Management Shakeup in 100 Years?

Morning Folks!!

Let's not minimize or maximize the Reverse Domain Name hijacking (RDNH) decision that came down against Procter and Gamble (P&G) over Swash.com back in March. But for a stellar company like P&G it is a black eye they should have never gotten.

So lets just deal with a few facts. This was what I wrote about the fallout back then.

This was my open letter to the CEO Bob McDonald that followed.

That was besides personally contacting each and every communications director for a comment without a single response.

But let's look and see what has happened in the days since. Exactly 90 days if you are counting.

The CEO, Mr.McDonald, steps down "effective immediately" at the beginning of Memorial Day weekend on May 23rd.  "Robert McDonald's four-year struggle to adapt Procter & Gamble Co. to a new world of more frugal consumers and tougher global competition has come to an abrupt end."

bobceo

Did "Frugal" (another word for CHEAP) include giving him or those that report to him the order to try and grab Swash.com?

But that is not all. Then just DAYS later P&G announces "Organization changes". MASSIVE changes. I then asked myself when in my lifetime did I ever see a shakeup like this at Procter and Gamble and I just can't remember one. Can you? They even picked the former ceo A.G. Lafley to get the compnay back on track. Both men in the industry for well in excess of 30 years.

lafleyjpg-4c2b2efd654c4661
A.G. Lafley. Chairman, CEO, President

Straw that broke the camels back? I guess we will never know. But it was a straw and that STAIN remains with this company FOREVER! It happend and somebody in their organization made a very costly and unfortunte mistake. A mistake that could rise to the level of ending a career.

So as domain name investors this is a case we can point other would-be hijackers to which will let them know that no company no matter how big or small are immune to a decision like this and the repercussions that come both personally and professionally. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.

Have a GREAT Day!

Rick Schwartz

 

Procter and Gamble and the Virtual”Scarlet Letter” for Reverse Domain Hijacking!

Morning Folks!!


How long will I continue to write about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)? Until my domains and your domains and the domains of every mom and pop operation in the world are safe from predators like Procter and Gamble and the other 33 companies listed HERE.


I respect trademark holders. I am one. I understand. I get it. I can see it from both sides. I know what infringing is and looks like. But I also know what stealing is and looks like. So my job is to make a DEEP impression on the next company engaging in RDNH.


If you are a TM owner and you think some domain is worthy of a UDRP, you better make sure that if the respondent goes after you for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, that you are on solid ground. If not, you have a MAJOR decision in LIFE! Read that again. IN LIFE! Because if you screw up on this, it will affect your life and that of your company.


You have to decide if the reputation of your entire company is worth it. You have to decide if MONEY is a better and safer alternative. You can no longer just think you can walk away with a domain name just because you want it. There is a marketplace and that's the arena that this all belongs in. So when you go out of the marketplace, you get what you get.


What would YOU have advised Procter and Gamble to do now that you KNOW it blew up in their face? What would you do? $30,000 to sell your companies reputation?? If the GIANT goes down, what is your shot? A $79 Billion dollar company has all the resources in the world and look where they ended up. As a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker found guilty of lying to a governing panel. I did not put that blemish on their name. I did not stain their name. They did that all be themselves. But I will be the PRICK that points it out at every opportunity because that's all we have. And ya know what? That will get it done!


You really want to gamble the future of YOUR company on the SAME BET Procter and Gamble took and LOST?? Do you really?


Then you are a total schmuck and you deserve to get treated like one. How's that?


Sorry, I don't have to be respectful of thieves and those thinking about stealing. My assets are GENERATIONAL and you can go to hell trying to get what my FAMILY owns! I took the risk and I paid to play!


Folks that are abusing the process and lose suffer no criminal or legal penalty as of today. That WILL change. But until then, our job is to tar and feather their deeds. Let folks know what the company they do business with is up to. Let them know their values. Let them know how they think. How they try and steal.


And remember this, in cases of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, that is a subject people will know more about in the future not less about. Our job is to discuss, write and HAUNT them. That's the only penalty and leverage we have at this UNTIL companies stop doing this. How does that happen? This is the way that happens. Words are very powerful. Thoughts are very powerful. Deeds are things you live with.


I want Procter and Gamble to do what is right. Why should they? It's their record. It's their name. It's their problem. And maybe doing what's right is actually something they should consider.


So the more people that know and find out the more the outrage. Someday these horse thieves of this century will pay a legal price. Until then these would-be horse thieves and cattle rustlers have to deal with whatever public fallout may occur as INFORMATION is circulated.


Our results may be invisible to us but it is not invisible. It takes its toll. Cut after cut. Punch after punch. The key is never to stop. And I never will. Its the ONLY way to protect our assets until the law catches up with this practice or companies stop engaging in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.


Common sense shows that stealing is wrong and for BIG companies to resort to stealing is pretty startling to the regular folks. That crap just does not fly for people with morals and values. Maybe a big company like P&G, that sold their stellar reputation for $30,000 should come out and say so! They sold their reputation to you and me. They no longer control it.


So these companies seem to lack morals and values and we will expose that to as many folks as possible as often as possible until THEY come out and address their misdeeds or criminal penalties are enacted. That's how I see it. You can all forget about it tomorrow. Somebody has to make sure the torch and the flame move on.


So if you file an action against a domain holder and they come back at you with a claim of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.....you better RETHINK what you are doing. Is it worth it? Would Procter and Gamble give $30,000 today if it knew what was about to happen?


Just plain DUMB, FOOLISH and costly and this is all in ink and every company pulling this crap will have a virtual 'Scarlet Letter' pinned to their name for the rest of time.


So we keep a running list of all these unethical companies.


Great move all of ya! You should teach a college course in ethics.


Rick Schwartz



Reverse Domain Hijacker Procter and Gamble Gets the CHEAPSTER Award as Well!!

Morning Folks!!

We are starting to learn about the details of this unbelievable case involving Procter and Gamble. Now prepare to fall on the floor over stupidity and just being a cheap chump.

BizJournals is reporting: 'P&G asked Marchex in March 2012 to give it the name in exchange for registration and transfer costs. Receiving no response, it then offered $600. Marchex refused and asked for $30,000.'

So a 172 year old company got THIS and all the rest to come for not paying a LOUSY $30,000 for this $79 BILLION dollar company and had to try and STEAL the domain by LYING!?

The lie? They said they sold $40 MILLION on the Swash product when in FACT it was $60,000.

Rick Schwartz

An Open Letter to P&G CEO Bob McDonald. Procter and Gamble found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Hijacking.

Morning Folks!!

I am not happy that Procter and Gamble has been found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking but I am going to milk this story for every ounce it is worth and it may take me YEARS to do it. When it comes to Domain Names, Procter and Gamble was a guiding light in my book. Great respect because they figured it out. Even tho I vaguely recall them dumping a bunch of domains years ago. I think I might have gotten 1 or 2.

Reverse domain name hijacking (also known as reverse cybersquatting), occurs where a trademark owner attempts to secure a domain name by making false cybersquatting claims against a domain name's rightful owner. In this case not only did P&G make false claims, they also lied outright to the governing panel and got caught!

See when I started, P&G was already out there getting domain names or soon thereafter. So they understood about domain names very early. It is that reason that what they did is particularly troubling. I always liked and respected Procter and Gamble because they always moved well with the time and of course I like everyone else use a lot of their products. But all our lives. All my parents lives. All my grandparents lives and half of the life's of their parents before them. Whew!

They are the warm and fuzzy company that gave us many soap operas and toothpaste and all types of other things we use each and every day. They perfected the TV commercial long before any of us were even in the game or born. So it makes me sad to learn one of my heroes is now a would-be thief had the other party not fought back and exposed their fraud! Well done John Berryhill!

Who made that decision? Who was responsible for P&G overstepping in this outrageous manner? So outrageous that a 3 member panel called them out in a way I don't think I have seen before. Saveme.com case had very strong language. But this language seemed to be harsher in tone. I guess it is open to interpretation. But maybe because it was slapping a business giant as if he had no more standing than you and me. BRAVO!!

I am not mad at them. I am going to use Procter and Gamble to make many points over the next YEARS! Let companies KNOW if P&G is convicted of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, you will be too if you engage in this despicable act. But I would just as well have them tell the story. I'd like to ask why a company worth billions would STAIN their reputation with this act that the common man would find appalling? Why would they not just come to an agreement with the owner? Now they pay the price and the price is priceless. How stupid is that??

I am angry, upset and most of all disappointed in a company that wrote the book on marketing and other things. They were true leaders of an era. Of many eras.

So what MORONIC company wants to be NEXT!!?? Who made the decision to do this? Why did they do it? What transpired that allowed them to risk so much for so little?? That's what I really don't get.

I am very disappointed. I am still going to use their products but they can't force me to look at their company the same ever again. These companies are playing with fire.

Maybe they should do some research into history and see what some little old ladies did to big companies that tried to build malls where their homes were located. This is akin to that. But in an age like this news flies and it is in ink.

Some SCHMUCK working at SOME DEPARTMENT at Procter and Gamble, decided it was worth GAMBLING the reputation of a 172 year old company. 135,000 employees. $79 BILLION in sales in 80 countries. And they had to try and muscle some guy with a domain? What would you call that Mr. CEO of Procter and Gamble?? I CHALLENGE you Mr. McDonald to come to our trade show and explain it to this audience and the wider audience? I CHALLENGE YOU!!??

Wow! What a HUGE blunder. What have you learned? Are you going to use the same tactics again? Are you pissed at me? Maybe you should be pissed but I am not the one you should be pissed at. I would be pissed at the person, department or firm that put the reputation of your 172 year old company on the line and LOST!!??

Besides all this your company, P & G, was found to misrepresent facts to the panel. Nice touch! Were you personally involved in that decision? You should RESIGN TODAY if you were. This is all my personal as well as professional opinion. I'll assume you were not involved in a low level decision that was this stupid and worse.

What say you Mr. McDonald? Personally I am just disappointed that a company I have always looked up to would stoop to this. I am sorry for the bluntness of this post but our industry has suffered from corporate bullies for nearly 20 years and this time the giant of em all went down and went down very hard. Very hard! A company that otherwise has been very wise in their domains and how they have conducted themselves. But now this STAIN and none of your STAIN REMOVERS will be effective on this.

Mr. Berkens points out that your folks LIED to the panel when your company said they did $40 Million in business on the 'swash' product.

“The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000.”

“When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled under USD 60,000.”

Most importantly Mr. Berkens points out one last thing:

Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.

So your company LIED Mr. McDonald in an effort to STEAL a domain that belongs to another company, Marchex, which just as easily could have been some mom and pop in Iowa that could not defend themselves and let you have the domain. You now join our 'Hall of Shame' and each time somebody is convicted of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, we repost the entire list. Congrats!

So let me ask you directly Mr. McDonald, How many domains has your company gotten that it had to LIE about? Or that they had to make folks spend money they did not have to defend what was rightfully theirs and is now yours? Tell us that. Isn't that a fair question in light of what has happened? Maybe you should WANT to find out. WANT to make it right. If I have something wrong, please let me know.

Sir, I have been doing this for 18 years and what your company did is troubling and it is something that we as risk takers have had to UNFAIRLY endure. There is a free market place. Use it, don't abuse it. Right now you and your 172 year old company have to live with this. It probably means nothing to you but it may mean the WORLD to somebody else. So to get our message out we need to SHAME companies that engage in this abuse as there is no penalty for what we just saw happen. They just walk away.

Mcdonald
Bob McDonald. CEO since 2009

Here is a list of Procter and Gamble Products. The asterisk are their *Billion Dollar Brands*. Come on Mr. McDonald. What say you about this? You sound like a stand up guy that served your country and company well. You have been with the company for 33 years. Don't you want to get to the bottom of this as well? Who put the companies good name in jeopardy for this? Who lied? What idiot is responsible? Marketing? Legal? Finance? Who? How many? Why would you allow this embarrassment to occur again or are you too big to be embarrassed? Any other abuse in the name of your 172 year old company. I sure as hell would want to know if I were in your position.

So we are forced to use Procter and Gamble as an example to sway the next MORON or the next company not to get involved with this despicable act of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Help us do that Mr. McDonald and you will find an ally and we can call it a great day!

And as I read the history of the company I stopped as it described the 'Joint Venture' that started this company back in 1837. Wonder what Mr. Procter and Mr. Gamble would have done given the same circumstance? Before they even had billions? My instinct says they would have acted in a different manner and somebody there violated a 172 year old trust just because he or she was a cheap bastard that played fast and loose with the facts and refused to pay either fair market value or find an alternative.

Regretfully,

Rick Schwartz

Procter and Gamble Newest Entry in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Poster Boy!

Afternoon Folks!!


In the highest profile Reverse Domain Name Hijacking case in History, DomainNameWire is reporting that Procter and Gamble has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name hijacking Swash.com! They join the list below that will be displayed each and every time one of these cases comes out.


Procter and Gamble and their Attorney got their asses WHOPPED as you will read in RED below direct from the panel in what is on of THE single most stinging decisions I have ever read.


Here is the panels SPANKING of Procter and Gamble and their Attorney!




7. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking




page 8




The Respondent has requested that the Panel issue a finding of abuse of this UDRP proceeding or “reverse domain name hijacking” per the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel notes that panels do not usually issue such a finding in a case where a complainant has prevailed with respect to two (in the present case not unanimously) of the three elements required under the Policy. See, for example, National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Barry Preston, WIPO Case No. D2005-0424 (“Inasmuch as the Panel has found that the Complainant has incontestable rights in its HISTORIC HOTELS OF AMERICA mark, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark, the Panel finds the Respondent’s claim of reverse domain name hijacking unpersuasive.”); Globosat Programadora Ltda. v. J. Almeida, WIPO Case No. D2005-0199; and Interep National Radio Sales, Inc. v. Internet Domain Names, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0174.


However, the Panel does not believe that the present Case represents a normal circumstance. The Panel notes that the Complainant, The Procter & Gamble Company, is a premier marketer and advertiser of consumer products in the United States of America and in many other countries. It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, <swash.com>, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the Complainant introduced its SWASH product line in 2009.




The Complainant and its legal counsel are not strangers to the UDRP process. See, P&G Prestige Products, Inc. v. Ryogo Sugai, WIPO Case No. D2009-1098; The Procter & Gamble Company v. Richard Jones, NAF Claim No. 1266787; The Procter & Gamble Company v. William Vaughan, River Cruise Investments Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-1164; The Procter & Gamble Company, P&G Hair Care, LLC v. Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2007-1040; Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Johnny Carpela, NAF Claim No. 625591; The Procter & Gamble Company v. Hong Gil Dong, NAF Claim No. 572962; et cetera. Therefore, the Panel (by a majority) concludes that the Complainant must have known that, once the relevant facts of this case were uncovered, a UDRP panel could not possibly find that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. To have filed the Complaint at this relatively late date – more than eleven years after the registration of the disputed domain name and several years after its acquisition by the Respondent –seems a grotesquely unfair attempt to wrest ownership of the disputed domain name from the owner. See, Proto Software, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc/PROTO.COM, WIPO Case No. D2006-0905 (“The Panel considers that the Complainant is represented by Counsel who even on a rudimentary examination of the Policy and its application in this area should have appreciated that the Complaint could not succeed where the Respondent’s domain name had been registered three years prior to filing a trademark application or actual use of the mark.”); and carsales.com.au Limited v. Alton L. Flanders, WIPO Case No. D2004-0047 (“In the Panel’s view a finding of reverse domain name hijacking is warranted if the Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the Policy.”)



The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled underUSD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.


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 did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.





page 9




For completeness, the Panel acknowledges the Respondent’s contention as to the Complainant’s true motivation behind this administrative proceeding (see paragraph 5D above), but does not regard it as necessary or appropriate that it should address the point.


8. Decision


For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. The Panel also makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking against the Complainant.






I have 29 30 34 such cases so far and each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them.


And a special tip of the hat to John Berryhill who is the leading RDNH attorney in the world. I am counting and will post how many wins he has recorded on behalf of his clients.


SaveMe.com The Grand daddy of RDNH. Here is my post on this very big win against Márcio Mello Chaves, aka Márcio Chaves aka Marcio Chaves.


The Complainant is G.W.H.C. - Serviços Online Ltda., E-Commerce Media Group Informação e Tecnologia Ltda. of Sao Paulo, Brazil, represented by Almeida Advogados, Brazil. Found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Case #1 is our Friend Scott Day of Digimedia who won a $100k+ judgment against GOFORIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC who IS a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER.


Case #2 Rain.com Media Rain LLC engaged in Reverse Domain Hijacking


Case #3 CinemaCity.com The Complainant is Prime Pictures LLC of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”). Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #4 CollectiveMedia.com The Complainant is Collective Media, Inc., New York, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #5 Elk.com The Complainant is ELK Accesories Pty Ltd. of Preston, Australia represented by Pointon Partners, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #6 ForSale.ca Globe Media International Corporation is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #7 Mess.com Kiwi Shoe Polish Company, The Complainant is Mess Enterprises, San Francisco, California, of United States of America, represented by Steve Clinton, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #8 Goldline.com The Complainant is Goldline International, Inc., represented by Spataro & Associates is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #9 K2R.com The complainant is a Swiss company, K2r Produkte AG of Haggenstrasse45, CH 9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #10 CarSales.com The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #11 Proto.com The Complainant is Proto Software, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Byron Binkley, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #12 TrailBlazer.com Trailblazer Learning, Inc. represented by COO Brett W, Caledonia, Michigan is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #13 DreamGirls.com The Complainant is Dreamgirls, Inc., Tampa, Florida, United States of America, represented by Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Los Angeles, California, United States of America and have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case #14 Mexico.com The Complainant is Consejo de Promoción Turística de México, S.A. de C.V., Colonia Anzures, Mexico, represented by Bello, Guzmán, Morales Y Tsuru, S.C., Mexico is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #15 Windsor.com Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Windsor Fashions, Inc., a California corporation with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Complainant is represented in this proceeding by Abraham M. Rudy, Esq. and Julie Waldman, Esq., Weisman, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP, Beverly Hills, California, United States of America. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case #16 Mindo.com Complainants are Scandinavian Leadership AB and Mindo AB of Uppsala, Sweden, internally represented. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case # 17 and Sha.com he Complainant is Albir Hills Resort, S.A. of Alfaz del Pi Alicante, Spain, represented by PADIMA, Abogados y Agentes de Propiedad Industrial, S.L., Spain. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case # 18 etatil.com The Complainants are ÖZALTUN OTELCİLİK TURİZM VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. of Istanbul, Turkey, Allstar Hotels LLC of New York, Unites States of America and Mr. Metin ALTUN of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case # 19 Takeout.com. Complainant is Tarheel Take-Out, LLC of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented internally. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case # 20 WallStreet.com The Complainant is Wall-Street.com, LLC of Florida, United States of America (the “United States” or “US”), represented by Flint IP Law, United States. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case # 21 parvi.org found for the complainant in 2009 but in 2012 the courts rules that theCity of Paris, France was guilty of 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking' in a landmark case that resulted in a $125,000 judgement against the city.


Case #22 Gtms.com The Complainant is Sustainable Forestry Management Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant is represented by its general counsel, Mr. Eric Bettelheim. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case #23 PetExpress.com The Complaintant is Airpet Animal Transport, Inc. represented by Mark W. Good of Terra Law LLP, California, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'


Case #24 ColdFront.com Complainant is Personally Cool Inc. (“Complainant”), New York, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'


Case #25 Unive.com Complainant is Coöperatie Univé U.A. of Arnhem, Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands. 'Given the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding'


Case #26 eCase.com AINS, INC. (“Complainant”), represented by Janice W. Housey of Symbus Law Group, LLC, Virginia, USA. The panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.


Case #27 TinyPrint.com Complainant is Tiny Prints, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA 'Complaint was brought in bad faith and that, accordingly, Complainant has attempted to engage in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'


Case #28 Enki.com Complainant is Enki LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Eric A. Novikoff, of California, USA. 'This is a frivolous proceeding which should never have been filed by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant is guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'


Case #29 SFM.com Complainant is State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. represented by Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota, USA The Panel finds 'Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'


Case #30 Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


'It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, <swash.com>, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the Complainant introduced its SWASH product line in 2009.


The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled underUSD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.


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 did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'


Case #31 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.'


Case #32 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 was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'


Case #33 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 a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”


The general conditions for a finding of bad faith on the part of a complainant are well stated in Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes, WIPO Case No. D2000-0993 (October 18, 2000):


“Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.”


These conditions are confirmed in Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line, WIPO Case No. D2000-1151 (January 4, 2001) and Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-1224 (October 31, 2000) (where the condition is stated as “the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge”), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. Plan Express, WIPO Case No. D2000-0565 (July 17, 2000).


The Complainant knew when it filed the Complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name preceded by several years any rights that the Complainant may have acquired in the mark WEB PASS. Indeed, the Complainant annexes a printout of the WhoIs registration to the Complaint, and that printout indicates that the domain name was created well before the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its mark. In this Panel’s view, this is sufficient to find reverse domain name hijacking. See NetDeposit, Inc. v. NetDeposit.com, WIPO Case No.D2003-0365 (July 22, 2003) (finding reverse domain name hijacking because “Respondent's domain name registration preceded the Complainant's creation of its trademark rights”).


The Panel finds that the Complainant has attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.


Case #34 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 did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.


See NetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (“To establish reverse domain name hijacking, Respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the Complainant in the fact of such knowledge.”); see also Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Glisson, FA 250232 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2004) (finding that complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking where it used “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).


Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. The Panel further finds that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'


My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to post. The reality is this post will be re-posted EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a case of RDNH. Every time and now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table un good faith instead of being labeled forever with bad faith. The net is written in INK!


THOU SHALT NOT STEAL! Stop trying to steal and start doing BUSINESS! Feel free to repost FAR and WIDE!


Rick Schwartz



Queen.com Hijacking by Frands Jepsen of Knud Jepsen, Denmark, Foiled by WIPO

Evening Folks!!

The SECOND to last thing I want to do is blog again. But the LAST thing I want to do is allow a THIEF like Frands Jepsen of Knud Jepsen from Denmark and his attorney  Marie Lykke Kristiansen of Patrade A/S Denmark to get away without paying a substantial and LONG LASTING price!!

So I am minding my own business and read that my domain, Queen.com that I bought in 1997 and was first registered in 1995 was the subject of a WIPO action claiming Trademark Infringement! I laughed cuz whoever the FOOL and the INEPT attorney representing the fool was to go after a name that I owned for just short of 20 years was going to have their lives altered in a way they could never even imagine. Like a mugshot permanently hung up for the entire world to see. Blogs, news, social media. All out of their control but allowed others control of THEIR reputations. A costly mistake by THIEVES to try and steal a multi-million dollar asset. Cute! Caught! Game over for YOU, just starting for ME.

For the record, I am a TERRIBLE steward of reputations for THIEVES and would-be hijackers. No reputation repair company can EVER help them. They EARNED the name "Reverse Domain Name Hijackers" by an esteemed International panel of 3 and they will bear that moniker for eternity. My problem is now THEIR problem.

Here are the employees of Knud Jepsen from Denmark and doing business at Queen.dk. Led by Frands Jepsen (below) ceo/owner and I assume other employees that are responsible. Now CONVICTED of "REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING" (RDNH). Represented by Marie Lykke Kristiansen of Patrade A/S Denmark who should have known better! SHAME ON YOU and your LAW FIRM! "Accomplices" in a hijacking. Like driving the getaway car!

Since there is no prison time nor is there even a monetary penalty for their attempted theft, it is up to domain and business owners like myself to tell EVERYONE.

Cattle Rustlers used to be HUNG! The only tool we have is public shaming and humiliation. The Internet is written in INK. Their names will be forever associated with their Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Even though it was not successful, it cost me $5000 to defend my own property and time and all the other crap! Well, I am here for my POUND OF FLESH Frands Jepsen and Company. You had your turn, now it is my turn!

$2 Million was the price I quoted your representative Karen Mogelvang from your Marketing & Branding Department in 2015. Matter of fact, I never even answered her first email. I blew her off. She had to email me again before I responded. Glad I did, helped me win the case! In the decision it states:





  1. The Complaint (That's you Frands) lacks candour (That means: the quality of being open and honest in expression; frankness is MISSING) in that it makes no mention of the Complainant's unsuccessful approach to buy the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent.





I sent an email (see in italics below) and tried to warn Frands Jepsen of the consequences he and his company AND his lawfirm, Patrade A/S, Denmark would face after their conviction. Now Frands you pay the price for trying to STEAL a domain you did not want to pay $2 Million for. The 3 member panel that UNANIMOUSLY convicted you called it a classic "Plan B".

"In the Panel's view, this is a classic "Plan B" case where a party, having been frustrated in its negotiations to buy a domain name, resorts to the ultimate option of a highly contrived and artificial claim not supported by any evidence or the plain wording of the UDRP. This stratagem has been described in many UDRP cases as "a highly improper purpose" and it has often contributed to findings of RDNH"

In lay language. You are CHEAP BASTARDS that abused the administrative proceeding of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). You tried to use them to STEAL from ME! And for that, you get what Frands Jepsen, employees and their lawyers deserve. To be exposed throughout the world. My job will be done when your NEIGHBORS know you are a THIEF!

Did I get an apology? NO! Did they send me $5000 to reimburse me? NO! Scoundrels and THIEVES seldom do. But I am entitled to bring a Federal action with a minimum $100,000 award PLUS attorney fees etc etc.

Frands Jepsen of Knud Jepsen, Owner and CEO tried to steal my business. I am going to teach Frands Jepsen and all connected an Internet lesson they will never forget. There are now multiple articles about this attempted hijacking of Queen.com. Twitter discussions. Linkedin discussions. Blog posts. My job is CIRCULATION Frands! I want the world to know you tried to HIJACK the QUEEN!

Hope you comment. But I am sure you are a COWARD as well as a THIEF! Oh well, there is a dictionary of adjectives I will use to describe you in the coming years.

So with that in mind, you have been inducted into HallofShame.com where I list Reverse Domain Hijackers like Frands Jepsen. You may want to read my article on Procter and Gamble who did a similar thing for a $30,000 domain. Now that is a STAIN that even Clorox can't get out. Was it a coincidence that the CEO and his team were fired 90 days after the Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision and MY articles? The biggest company shakeup in 100 YEARS!!??? I DON'T BELIEVE SO!!

Let me share my UNANSWERED email to Frands with my readers. I am a man of my word:

Hello Frands,

I am going to file suit against YOU and YOUR COMPANY for interfering with my business.
YOU will be labeled a "reverse domain name hijacker" (GO LOOK IT UP) and the world will see it. Your lawyers and employees too. 

Check out what I did to the last MORON that tried to STEAL from me. http://www.saveme.com 
And I have reserved a spot for YOU, YOUR EMPLOYEES and your Attorney on http://www.HallofShame.com where it will be for eternity!

Campbells tried to get LadyGodiva.com from me. THEY LOST!
Lilly Company tried to get Goofoff.com from me. THEY LOST!

And you, YOU will be the BIGGEST LOSER EVER because we are talking about a multi-million dollar domain.I don't like THIEVES and sir, that is what YOU are!

I will exercise my right of FREE SPEECH on Twitter so folks FAR and WIDE know. Your NEIGHBORS and FAMILY will know. And after I win and you are slapped with a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker" moniker, I will present in Federal Court for substantial DAMAGES. I am going to make you infamous to all in DENMARK and beyond. Present this as evidence I don't give a crap. I HATE THIEVES!

Good thing YOU will be CAUGHT and in front of the entire world! The Internet is written in INK and this attempted theft will follow you, your company and your family to the day you die. 



Can't wait for your WIPO complaint so I and my attorney can make you look like FOOLS and THIEVES! And when it is over, the answer is NO. No, I will NOT remove any reference to what you and your company did and I will make you and your company the NEWEST POSTER BOY for DOMAIN HIJACKING! I will call YOU a HIJACKER for many YEARS! Ask around Frands, Do some research. YOU picked the wrong guy to steal from! Please don't blame me for what is to come. YOUand your ATTORNEY brought this on yourself.



btw, check out the Clorox stories of Procter and Gamble I wrote about: http://www.ricksblog.com/?s=procter#.WOTKYlLMxZ0n
  They will NEVER remove that stain. CEO got fired for it!

 

So, a PROMISE KEPT! I tried to warn him. Fell on deaf ears. Just crickets! Ignoring concerns on the Internet is a recipe for disaster no matter who tries it. Every single time and folks NEVER learn. They watch others go down in FLAMES and just follow the same idiotic path.

And this exercise is for the next FOOL, that tries to steal from ME or possibly anyone else!

Frand Jepsen and his company Knud Jepsen are hereby awarded the distinction of HallofShame.com Poster boy for 2017. In the coming days YOU will have YOUR FACE and your attorney plastered on HallofShame.com HOME PAGE as well as Queen.com. Frands, you will be the STAR of Queen.com. Or shall I say the QUEEN of Queen.com? But only until circulation hits critical mass. Then back to where it was pointed before! So don't think you are any better off then you were. Eventually you will figure it out and know how badly you screwed up. The screwup of a lifetime! Only about 35 companies/people a YEAR are CONVICTED of Reverse Domain Name hijacking out of some 300 MILLION domain names WORLDWIDE. That puts you in a very exclusive group of ASSHOLES, FOOLS, MORONS and IDIOTS! I am sure my readers could spend DAYS pinning adjectives on you and your attempted hijacking. Remember to update your résumé with your new title Frands.

At least we finally found out WHO is "Rotten in Denmark", Frands Jepsen and his company Knud Jepsen and attorney Marie Lykke Kristiansen of Patrade A/S Denmark. Did you guys learn anything or are you just jumping up and down angry?

And should ANY of you threaten me for circulating FACTS, then I will go into HIGH GEAR! Believe me, I am still on "Cruise Control" guys.

Poke a SLEEPING Lion once and he may keep sleeping. Do it twice he will DEVOUR ALL of you in whole!! BURP!

Here is their Facebook page in case you would like to wish them luck. I used google translator to post in Danish: https://www.facebook.com/pg/QueenFlowersdk/posts/

Have a GREAT Day!
Rick Schwartz

PS: A big THANK YOU to Zak Muscovitch for presenting a MASTERFUL case. I may even release our entire argument. Text Book PERFECT!

PS2: If your comment is "Long" the "Post button" may disappear on some browsers. We are addressing the issue but may be a few days. Please try and separate into smaller posts until then. Thanks!

Danish Translation

Aften folkens !!

Den anden til sidste ting, jeg vil gøre, er blog igen. Men det sidste, jeg vil gøre, er at tillade en TJOR som Frands Jepsen fra Knud Jepsen fra Danmark og hans advokat Marie Lykke Kristiansen fra Patrade A / S Danmark at komme væk uden at betale en betydelig og langvarig pris !!

Så jeg tænker på min egen virksomhed og læser, at mit domæne, Queen.com, som jeg købte i 1997 og blev registreret første gang i 1995, var genstand for en WIPO-aktion, der påberåber varemærkes overtrædelse! Jeg lo cuz hvem den FOOL og den INEPT advokat, der repræsenterer idioten, skulle gå efter et navn, jeg ejede i bare kort 20 år, ville få deres liv ændret på en måde, de aldrig kunne forestille sig. Ligesom en mughot hang permanent for hele verden at se. Blogs, nyheder, sociale medier. Alt er uden for deres kontrol, men tillod andre kontrol over deres omdømme. En kostbar fejl ved THIEVES at forsøge at stjæle et multi-million dollar aktiv. Cute! Fanget! Spil over til dig, lige begyndt for mig.

Til posten er jeg en FORFÆRDELIG steward af omdømme for THIEVES og ville være kapere. Intet omdømme reparationsfirma kan nogensinde hjælpe dem. De har EARNED navnet "Reverse Domain Name Hijackers" af et anerkendt internationalt panel på 3 og de vil bære den moniker for evigheden. Mit problem er nu deres problem.

Her er medarbejderne hos Knud Jepsen fra Danmark og forretninger på Queen.dk. Ledet af Frands Jepsen (under) ceo / ejer og jeg påtager sig andre medarbejdere, der er ansvarlige. Nu BEKRÆFTET af "REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING" (RDNH). Repræsenteret af Marie Lykke Kristiansen fra Patrade A / S Danmark, som burde have kendt bedre! SKAM PÅ DIG OG DERES LOVFIRM! "Akkompagnementer" i en kapring. Kan lide at køre flugtbilen!

Da der ikke er nogen fængselstid, og heller ikke er der en monetær straf for deres tyveri, er det op til domæne- og virksomhedsejere som mig selv at fortælle alle.

Kvæg Rustlers plejede at være HUNG! Det eneste værktøj, vi har, er offentlig shaming og ydmygelse. Internettet er skrevet i INK. Deres navne vil altid være forbundet med deres Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Selvom det ikke lykkedes, kostede det mig $ 5000 for at forsvare min egen ejendom og tid og alle de andre crap! Nå, jeg er her for min PUND OF FLESH Frands Jepsen og Company. Du havde din tur, nu er det min tur!

$ 2 millioner var prisen jeg citerede din repræsentant Karen Mogelvang fra din Marketing & Branding afdeling i 2015. Faktisk svarede jeg aldrig selv sin første email. Jeg sprængte hende ud. Hun måtte e-maile mig igen, før jeg svarede. Glad jeg gjorde, hjalp mig med at vinde sagen! I beslutningen hedder det:

Klagen (det er du Frands) mangler godhed (Det betyder: kvaliteten af ​​at være åben og ærlig i udtryk; åbenhed er MISSING), fordi det ikke nævner Klagerens mislykkede tilgang til at købe det omtvistede domænenavn fra respondenten.
Jeg sendte en email (se kursiv nedenfor) og forsøgte at advare Frands Jepsen om de konsekvenser, som han og hans firma OG hans advokatfirma Patrade A / S, Danmark ville møde efter deres overbevisning. Nu, Frands betaler du prisen for at forsøge at STEAL et domæne, du ikke ønskede at betale $ 2 millioner til. Det 3-medlemspanel, som UNANIMOUSUS dømte dig, kaldte det en klassisk "Plan B".

"I panelets opfattelse er dette en klassisk" Plan B "-sag, hvor en fest, der har været frustreret i sine forhandlinger om at købe et domænenavn, er den ultimative mulighed for en stærkt konstrueret og kunstig påstand, der ikke understøttes af noget bevis eller Klart formulering af UDRP. Denne strategi er blevet beskrevet i mange UDRP-tilfælde som "et meget ukorrekt formål", og det har ofte bidraget til resultaterne af RDNH "

På sproget. Du er CHEAP BASTARDS, der misbrugte den administrative procedure fra World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Du forsøgte at bruge dem til at stjæle fra mig! Og for det får du, hvad Frands Jepsen, medarbejdere og deres advokater fortjener. At blive udsat i hele verden. Mit arbejde vil blive gjort, når dine naboer ved, at du er en tøf!

Fik jeg undskyldning? INGEN! Har de sendt mig $ 5000 for at refundere mig? INGEN! Scoundrels og THIEVES gør sjældent. Men jeg har ret til at bringe en føderal handling med mindst $ 100.000 tildeling PLUS advokatgebyr mv mv.

Frands Jepsen fra Knud Jepsen, ejer og CEO forsøgte at stjæle min virksomhed. Jeg skal lære Frands Jepsen, og alle har tilsluttet en internet-lektion, de aldrig vil glemme. Der er nu flere artikler om dette forsøg på kapring af Queen.com. Twitter diskussioner. Linkedin diskussioner. Blogindlæg. Mit job er CIRCULATION Frands! Jeg vil have verden til at vide, at du forsøgte at HIJACK DROTTEN!

Håber du kommenterer. Men jeg er sikker på at du er en COWARD såvel som en TYPE! Åh ja, der er en ordbog med adjektiver, jeg vil bruge til at beskrive dig i de kommende år.

Så med det i tankerne er du blevet introduceret i HallofShame.com, hvor jeg nævner Reverse Domain Hijackers som Frands Jepsen. Du vil muligvis gerne læse min artikel om Procter og Gamble, som gjorde en lignende ting for et $ 30.000 domæne. Nu er det en STAIN, at selv Clorox ikke kan komme ud. Var det tilfældigt, at administrerende direktør og hans team blev fyret 90 dage efter domænenavnets kapacitetsbeslutning og mine artikler? Det største selskab shakeup i 100 år !! ??? Jeg tror ikke så !!

Lad mig dele min UNANSWERED email til Frands med mine læsere. Jeg er en mand af mit ord:

Hej frands

Jeg skal klage over dig og din virksomhed for at forstyrre min virksomhed.
Du vil blive mærket med et "reverse domain name hijacker" (se det op), og verden vil se det. Dine advokater og medarbejdere også.

Se, hvad jeg gjorde til den sidste Moron, der forsøgte at stjæle fra mig. http://www.saveme.com
Og jeg har forbeholdt dig, dine medarbejdere og din advokat på http://www.HallofShame.com hvor det vil være for evigheden!

Campbells forsøgte at få LadyGodiva.com fra mig. DE TABTE!
Lilly Company forsøgte at få Goofoff.com fra mig. DE TABTE!

Og du vil du være den største LOSER, EVER, fordi vi taler om et multi-million dollar domæne. Jeg kan ikke lide THIEVES og herr, det er det du er!

Jeg vil udøve min ret til GRATIS TALE på Twitter, så folk, FAR og WIDE, ved. Dine naboer og familie vil vide. Og efter at jeg har vundet og du er slået sammen med en "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker" -moniker, vil jeg præsentere i Federal Court for betydelige skader. Jeg vil gøre dig berygtet over for alle i DANMARK og ud over. Præsentér dette som bevis, jeg giver ikke noget skit. Jeg hader dem!

Godt, du bliver CAUGHT og foran hele verden! Internettet er skrevet i INK, og dette forsøg på tyveri følger dig, din virksomhed og din familie til den dag du dør.

http://www.hallofshame.com
http://www.RDNH.com

Kan ikke vente på din WIPO-klage, så jeg og min advokat kan få dig til at ligne FOOLS og THIEVES! Og når det er overstået, er svaret nej. Nej, jeg vil IKKE fjerne nogen henvisning til hvad du og din virksomhed gjorde, og jeg vil gøre dig og din virksomhed til den nyeste POSTER BOY for DOMAIN HIJACKING! Jeg vil kalde dig en HIJACKER i mange år! Spørg omkring Frands, lav lidt forskning. Du har valgt den forkerte fyr til at stjæle fra! Vær venlig at bebrejde mig for, hvad der skal komme. Du og din advokat bragte dette på dig selv.

Btw, tjek Clorox historierne om Procter og Gamble jeg skrev om: http://www.ricksblog.com/?s=procter#.WOTKYlLMxZ0n De vil ALDRIG fjerne den plet. CEO blev fyret for det!

Så, en PROMISE KEPT! Jeg forsøgte at advare ham. Fæld på døve ører. Bare crickets! At ignorere bekymringer på internettet er en opskrift på katastrofe, uanset hvem der prøver det. Hver eneste gang og folk lærer ALDRIG ikke. De ser andre gå ned i FLAMES og følg bare den samme idiotiske vej. Og denne øvelse er til den næste FOOL, der forsøger at stjæle fra ME eller muligvis nogen anden!

Frand Jepsen og hans firma Knud Jepsen bliver hermed tildelt sondringen af ​​HallofShame.com Poster-dreng i 2017. I de kommende dage vil du have dit ansigt gipset på HallofShame.com såvel som Queen.com. Frands, du vil være STAR Queen.com. Eller skal jeg sige QUEEN of Queen.com?

I det mindste har vi endelig fundet ud af, hvem der er "Rotten i Danmark", Frand Jepsen og hans firma Knud Jepsen og advokat Marie Lykke Kristiansen fra Patrade A / S Danmark. Har du læst noget, eller er du bare ved at hoppe op og ned vred?

Og skal nogen af ​​jer true mig for at cirkulere FAKTA, så går jeg ind i HØJ GEAR! Tro mig, jeg er stadig på "Cruise Control" guys.

Poke en SLEEPING Lion en gang, og han kan blive ved med at sove. Gør det to gange, han vil DEVOR alle jer i helhed !! Bøvse!

Hav en god dag!
Rick Schwartz

PS: En stor Tak til Zak Muscovitch for at præsentere en MASTERFUL sag. Jeg kan endda frigive hele vores argument. Tekstbog PERFEKT!

My No Nonsense Responses to Forbes.com and the World. Updated

Morning Folks!!

I can't even describe the high as I began to read the Forbes.com article last night. Then without notice I got sucker punched when I was referred to as a "Domain Squatter".  I was more than outraged. I was body slammed but I was not knocked out.

I thought we had passed that point of jealousy. But I got thrown back right into 1996 and that forum about mobile home and real estate flipping. They removed my comments as fast as I could write them. My crime? Showing a new type of real estate that would provide them with more money and a quicker way to do business.

But the biggest surprise of all is that this was coming from Forbes.com. The leading Capitaistic publication in the world. Outragreous!  I am reading this and wondering whose agenda is this? What would motivate this? The contradictions make no sense. They did not just present 2 sides, they presented something that did not add up.

So while we have not come as far as I would have thought, hoped, dreamed, it is still 2 years 1 month and 3 days until that 20 year mark. The time I believed it would take to change how this medium is viewed and why the .com address would increase in value faster than any other asset class in the history of mankind. A bold premise! A crazy timeline. But it would take all those years to change the thinking. And as you see with that article, we still have work to do. And while we are on the threshold of 20 years, we are not there yet. The landing gear is not down. But we are in contact with the control tower. We are in the gravitational pull of where this is all heading.

The gTLD "Booster Rocket" is just that. A Booster Rocket. What that means is that it propels the main ship (.com) to the destination while the booster rocket part falls back to earth as we have seen over the past 50 years on TV with every launch.

 

Comment #1

Excuse me,
But I invested many millions of dollars into an uproven medium called the Internet and I am NOT a “Domain Squatter”! I may be a homesteader, a risk taker, a gambler, but not a squatter and you should update your article accordingly.

Is Donald Trump a land squatter?
Bet you call him that and you would hear from his people pretty fast.

It is called CAPITALISM and that is something that Forbes is supposed to champion!

When I bought Porno.com for $42,000 people thought I was insane. That is not squatting. That is pure capitalism.

 

Comment #2

Squatter: a person who unlawfully occupies an uninhabited building or unused land.

So PLEASE update your story as you are implying I have done something unlawful and that is damaging to my reputation. And it is not accurate!

Occupy Wall Street, THAT is what a squatter is. I am a capitalist. An opportunist. Something that I should not have to defend on FORBES.COM of all places!!

 

Comment #3

And when Steve Forbes himself came to talk to the DOMAIN INDUSTRY at the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. domain conference I co-produce in 2007, he thought those that thought we were squatters were ignorant of what being an entrepreneur is all about.

btw, when I sold candy.com you failed to mention I still retain 10% of the company and get a 1.5% royalty for every item that goes out the door. That might be important information for your readers to know.

And yes I am a college dropout. That does not make me stupid. Last time I looked, I was in pretty good company. I even know what a squatter is and what a squatter isn’t.

I paid $750,000 for Property.com, how does that make me a squatter? That is outrageous coming from Forbes.com

I paid MANY millions for the domains I OWN! I outbid others just like some did last night. You just called them all squatters!

If I had domains with infringing trademarks that I was profiting from, then you would be on the right track. Generic domains like Candy.com, property.com and the 5998 others I own do not infringe on anyone.

 

Comment#4

I just saw the author is a a lawyer and journalist. And you would think she would know better than to refer to me in this disparaging and negative manner in an international publication like Forbes.com: “Domain name squatters like Schwartz”

NONSENSE!!

I bought domains LEGALLY, open to anyone and no other person on the planet wanted them out of 7 BILLION and it paid off. And will pay off for the rest of my life. Or I was the highest bidder. Neither of which would in any way, shape or form make me any more of a squatter than Donald Trump or any other property owner in the USA.

Ms. Jacobs, I am no squatter! I think you must correct and update the story and set the record straight.

 

Comment #5

And lastly,
Your entire article is based on false information you are giving your readers that the value of domain names are going down. Sorry, they are more like Manhattan Real Estate. Up, up, up.

Why don’t you tell them that the aftermarket on domains in 2013 broke ALL previous years sales records and we still have what may be the #1 month of the year to go?

Tell them that while the housing market was crashing that generic dotcom domain names were going up or fairly stable. That everyday many people are making loads of money by buying and selling domains like they flip real estate and are not squatters nor are they squatting. They are doing what has been done for HUNDREDS of years.

Tell them how all the hotel chains missed Hotels.com and how they have to pay millions a year to get reservations that they could have had first and FREE had they or anyone in their employment had the foresight to figure it out. They failed!

 

Comment #6

Thank you for taking out the reference about me being a squatter from your article.

I would like to point out one last fact.

According to Escrow.com at last Months T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Domain Industry Event, at least 2/3 of ALL domain sales are not reported by DNJournal.com. Most high value deals are never reported because of non-disclosure agreement.

Agreements that I have refused to sign over the years so that the REAL story about domain name investing could and would be told.

So the larger the sale, the less chance it would be public unless they are a public company and even then there are easy ways to hide what was paid.

In 2003 when I sold men.com for $1.3MM it made the news around the world. Was on CNN. Was everywhere. Fast forward to today and my $1.35 Million sale last month was hardly mentioned. Million dollar sales are common place with domains reported or not.

Today it is the $15MM-$20MM that would get the focus but again, according to Escrow.com just last month, those sales this year have not been made public. However since Escrow.com handles the transactions for many large deals, they do know and with some arm twisting, they shared with our audience.

.Com is the largest, most important and most powerful franchise the world has ever known. That is what should be covered. That a few letters with a .com tells folks anywhere in the world exactly how to contact you in various forms. It is the lifeline of most every business on the planet today. I have watched it grow from less than 5% to critical mass.

The ignorance by Madison Ave and Corp America during this time has been stunning! The misinformation even more so.

When I was born 60 years ago all the land was bought and I had no money. 500 years of squatters I guess! But the Internet gave real estate an entire new dimension. An entire new chance. I saw that parallel and I acted on it.

There is still plenty of opportunity in domain investing and I buy domains nearly every day of the week. Maybe I should go register IamNotaSquatter.com

The one thing I would hope comes from this….a real article about the important of domains based on facts that allows your readers to see what Steve Forbes himself saw when he spoke to our small but blossoming industry in 2007.

His video is somewhere on the targetedtraffic.com site so you can see EXACTLY what Steve Forbes himself believes about the legitimacy of what we do. And my 1999 erealestate.com is still in tact so you can measure just how many things I got right all those years ago.

 

Comment #7

Here is a short clip of Steve Forbes talking to or industry in 2007 along with a few others like Tom Gardner of the Motley Fool. Terry Jones of Travelocity.com and Kayak.

http://www.youtube.com/v/sQiAakhD03I?autoplay=1&rel=0&enablejsapi=1&playerapiid=ytplayer

 

Comment #8

“A pleasure to be around REAL entrepreneurs.”

A Direct quote from Steve Forbes as he addressed the Domain Industry during T.R.A.F.F.I.C. 2007 at the Westin Hotel in Hollywood, Florida.

 

Comment #9

And if the value of .com domains is going down, please explain how Procter and Gamble was CONVICTED of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as indicated on HallofShame.com.

Take a look how these companies would RISK their reputations to STEAL a domain and not PAY for a domain.

Landrover/Jaguar too.

http://www.hallofshame.com

 

Comment #10

@Deborah
“Investors need to understand the huge risks of buying this highly illiquid asset.”

The house I own next door has been on the market since 2010. How liquid is that? 177 feet direct Intracoastal and 4500 ft. house, $2.18MM. Where is my buyer? The appraisal is higher than my asking price. Matter of fact, my asking price is land only and the remodeled house is free. So where is my liquidity there? Since I don’t NEED to sell, I can wait for the market to come to me. But liquid??

Folks that NEED to be liquid should have cash and stock. You don’t by real estate to be liquid. You don’t buy domains to be liquid. You buy to develop in the future or to hold until you want. It’s an investment and as a rule investments are less than liquid. If I invest in a start-up, how liquid is that?? Is there a cashier I can cash in whenever I want?

I am sorry, but your misconceotions of our industry is stunning. Mike Berkens left a comment with a very in depth article he wrote about this article on TheDomains.com. You really need to read it. I don’t agree with all of what he says, but there is no disagreement with over $1 Billion be invested in expanding this channel right now before we even get to advertising.

I would like to invite you to be my guest at T.R.A.F.F.I.C. in May at the Bellagio. I want you to see first hand what this industry is about. Talk to the men and women who range from age from 20-75. They come from over a dozen different countries and come from all types of different backgrounds.

You will find rag to riches stories that will make you cry.

If you wrote about the “Land Barons” you would look and treat us differently. Take a look at Forbes.com own article on land barons and then justify how you write about us.

Respect for one group, but you can’t see we are the land baron’s of this century? Really?

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/14/ted-turner-john-malone-emmerson-business-billionaires-land.html

And the reason I bought so many millions of dollars of REAL real estate was that without concrete examples to point to, few would believe the success many have enjoyed.

This IS the real estate of the future and so may have flunked when it comes to understanding that.

Just name me one item in the history of mankind that increased in value faster than the domain name asset? PLEASE, name me one! Been asking for 18 years. Nobody has been able to answer that.

Gold took THOUSANDS of years to reach $1000/ounce.

 

Comment #11

btw,
Here is the link to the article I cited above from TheDomains.

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/11/23/the-only-thing-forbes-com-missed-about-the-domain-name-industry-is-the-billion-dollars-coming-into-it/

@Deborah, he took you to the wood shed. He did it with facts. It is hard to believe you read that and did not change how you view things. Or all these pretty respectful comments. Each making very strong points that will go unanswered.

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/11/23/the-only-thing-forbes-com-missed-about-the-domain-name-industry-is-the-billion-dollars-coming-into-it/

This is not new to us. We have been subjected to this type of thing for many years. But I think it is you and Forbes.com that NOW has an opportunity to change that.

With your editors, please go read and research the comments left. Factual comments. Not on emotion. Fact. And to be honest, that seems what reporting is coming down to Fact based vs emotion based. Personally I am guilty of both. But I am not a professional journalist either.

I do want to thank you for not censoring any of the comments. BRAVO!

I made a list yesterday of the 9 comments I left here in response.

http://www.ricksblog.com/2013/11/nonsense-responses-forbes-com-world/

And while we may joust, we do appreciate your article. Your readers and investors will decide. Thank you!!

 

Comment #12

Excuse me, I was the HARASSEE in that Saveme.com case. A 3rd party tried to STEAL my domain name by ABUSING the system and they got CAUGHT!

So today, these folks have to live with the consequences of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and being caught and labeled by a 3 member panel.

Otherwise known as stealing. They were convicted of that by the presiding panel on the link you provided. There have only been a few dozen such cases EVER on the Internet.

And from that, you get this:

http://www.ricksblog.com/2012/06/marcio-mello-chaves-labled-a-reverse-domain-hijacker-in-savemecom-case/

And you get this:

http://www.hallofshame.com/about/

The “law firm” seems like it knowingly engaged in the reverse domain hijacking and they get to share the honor in their actions. All factual. Let the next law firm know that if they engage in this and drive the GETAWAY CAR, that they too get listed on HallofShame.com.

And tell why they should not? I am listening. Did the law firm ever disavow their actions? Apologize for their actions? Explain what they did wrong so they won’t do it again?

They never said a word in how many YEARS?? Not a single one of them have. That would take this thing called “Courage” and that is in short supply.


 

In Conclusion

I always look at these events as an opportunity. An opportunity to circulate the truth and facts about what we do and the things we have learned that few know. This could be our biggest opportunity yet and our job is to speak out and hope it hits the ears of the informed. But first we have to set the record straight!

Rick Schwartz

The HallofShame.com Press Release



HallofSHAME.com Launches Website Targeting Reverse Domain


Name Hijacking





BOCA RATON, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Boca Raton based man launches HallofShame.com. An information based website that spotlights companies found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Reverse Domain Name Hijacking: When a person or company tries to STEAL a domain name from the rightful owner by claiming trademark infringement and bad faith among other fabrications in order to get a governing panel to award them the domain name for FREE.

The website www.hallofshame.com will shine a bright light on those companies found guilty of trying to hijack more than a domain name, but somebody’s business or dream. “Today is the day we begin the end of this disgusting practice. Since there is no legal or criminal penalty, these companies now put at risk their brands and entire online/offline reputations,” said Rick Schwartz owner of the website and leading the charge against those trying to steal domains and the lawyers that represent them. Until now Rick had been skewering these folks at Ricksblog.com after a Brazilian company was found guilty of trying to Reverse Hijack one of his domains, SaveMe.com, in March of 2012.

“With our traffic base and the help of many other folks that own a domain name, tens of thousands of visitors or more per month come to the website and when they get there they might be surprised what lengths some companies will go not to pay fair market value for the domain name they want, is already owned by somebody else and resort to abusing the process in an effort to hijack or steal what is not theirs. To finally be able to fight back is a great feeling and shows what the power of a single domain name can be,” Mr. Schwartz went onto say.

Just this year alone Procter and Gamble and Jaguar/Landrover have both been found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking by the governing body. Not only guilty, but with harsh language from the panels themselves. So no company big or small can get away with this any longer. The price to be paid when found guilty might be priceless.

HallofShame.com was registered in 1997 by Mr. Schwartz and September 3rd 2013 was the first day it was online as an independent site. The site has the wide support of the Domain Name Industry in which Mr. Schwartz plays a prominent role. Visit HallofShame.com for more information.

 



Contacts


For HallofShame.com
Rick Schwartz, 561-206-2201
mr800king@aol.com


Next Step: HallofShame.com Press Release

Morning Folks!!

Are we having fun yet? I sure am. Not because I want to do this, but because I love the hunt. I love BRANDING something that is designed to make one sale. Stop Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. But on the way to that goal there will be certain by-products. Educating folks about domains and the importance and value is just the first layer.

Soon  I will be able to declare that most people have at least one domain name. That is the grassroots that may have their own concerns in common with us. How many folks had just one domain name and got served with a WIPO or NAF without the $$$ to defend. How many of those would have had rulings of Reverse Domain Name hijacking had they been able to effectively defend their property? Possibly THOUSANDS! Possibly TENS of thousands.

By 2014 or 2015 we want to bring this practice to a screeching halt. So a seed has been planted and oh my it is gonna grow up to be a GIANT Tree the likes of which few will believe today. But this is a long-term endeavor and I relish the chance to make a BIG difference.

So this week I will begin to work on a press release that may be more interesting than most if I can get it down short and sweet. It's a challenge. Effective release are not easy and not my strong suit. The headline alone can make you are break you and it has to say a lot in a very short space. Where do I start?

Boca Raton, Florida September 12, 2013 HallofShame.com going after some of the World's largest companies including Procter and Gamble and Jaguar/Landrover who have both been found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.......more to come.

Rick Schwartz