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!

The Rick Schwartz 20th Anniversary Post! Domain Names Then Now and Beyond. Part 3

Morning Folks!!

12/18/15

It's been a while. Just a couple fun things as I countdown to my 20-year anniversary in the domain investment business this coming week on December 26th.  A 3-part series before I go back to retired life waiting for the 25th. But just like it was 20 years ago, people will be distracted with their holiday vacations. Today, just a little silly fun and humor. Hope you enjoy it!

 

Twas the day after Christmas when all through the house not a phone line was ringing so I just clicked my mouse.

My numbers were done and a spreadsheet confirmed that 1995 was over and 96 had begun.

The kitty-kat was nestled on top of my bed.  While visions of millions danced in my head.

I went out on a limb and there arose such a chatter, I sprang to my feet to climb the tall ladder.

Away to Windows I flew like a flash, tore open my mind and was just a bit brash.

To the moon and beyond in the new fallen idea the luster of money should soon appear.

With a few extra dollars so lively and quick, I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick

More rapid than eagles the coins they came and I whistled and shouted and called them by name.

Dot Com this and Dot Com that. Oh my goodness and look at dat!

Now pennies then nickels and dimes all day led me to discover new ways to make hay.

I plowed and plowed and plowed til May thinking of a time a score away.

I planted the seed to grow a tree and planted another to frame the sun. Oh my what a forrest it has become.

Two decades later I survived the zoo, Know one thing you never knew.

Whoever reads this and whatever they do. I'll promise right now to never bore you.

Domains to the rescue and on to the stars, to the moon and beyond and even Mars.

And time right now to fly away, I think I've had my my final say.

Good luck to all and to all a good night!

 

And here is a little extra bonus to twist your brain. I know it twisted mine!!

In 1996 I started writing using domain names I owned in a post I made that actually made sense. It was a little more colorful using only adult domains as you will see below and a bit easier confining it to one basic subject. So here is my modern day version: RATED R++. So be warned! 333 domains (at last count) used possibly making this the longest domain speak in history. Where is Guinness?

So while sitting with my virtualgirlfriend.com who was wearing sexyunderwear.com that I bought at the pornstore.com, sipping some chiantiwine.com singing christmascarols.com on my property.com having a little candy.com and watching some porno.com,  I got off my ass.com to go into erealestate.com where I figured I could make some homemade.com jointventures.com. It was like 1969.com all over again. It would help beginners.com and the unemployed.com take down their jobwanted.com sign to be able to retrain.com in computerservice.com or get bachelordegrees.com and become virtualteachers.com so they could get the greatestjob.com. Maybe someday make awardwinningsites.com. and make the top40list.com or even the top10list.com. That might send the topheadhunters.com looking their way and they will never kissass.com

So let's gettogether.com and startthinking.com then startbelieving.com then startmakingmoney.com so we can startliving.com on the way to delray.com and traffic2004.com and make new associations.com. Some were born in 1978.com while others were born in 1969.com or 1964.com or even 1923.com. I thought of all the widgets.com that would need wholesaling.com to onlineshoppers.com and who the beneficiaries.com would be and how that might impact the grandchildren.com who can shoptilyoudrop.com

Some wanted to gofishing.com. I wanted to do officework.com. Some thought I was pigheaded.com. But I thought of all the departments.com and I was not looking for a pissingmatch.com.

So first I went to the giftdepartment.com where I saw giftsformen.com and then giftsforwomen.com to find the hottestgifts.com with factoryrebates.com on the way to the servicedepartment.com next to the partsdept.com where I thought of some prankgifts.com for the starscars.com but I still wanted the hottestbargains.com.

I looked at the hottestbooks.com and the hottestfashions.com worn by the hottestcelebrties.com and hottestmodels.com going to the hottestplaces.com hanging with the hottestplayers.com but I was still focused on the hottestsales.com. The hotteststars.com in their pristinecars.com and limodrivers.com want to go to the hottestspots.com. They get the hottesttickets.com at the hottestshows.com and eat at the hottestrestaurants.com. But I am still looking for the hottestdeals.com on the hottestproducts.com at the hottestprice.com. But the hottestcelebs.com are going to the hottestclubs.com with the hottestchicks.com on the hottestdates.com all because they are hotshit.com and make the hottestmovies.com, hottestvideos.com and hottestmusic.com and become the hottestnews.com usually started by the hottestrumor.com and then they have to leave by finding the hottestfares.com and wherever they go they will still be the hottestgame.com in town.

I saw domains as goldfutures.com and investmentdiamonds.com and focused on investmentqualitydomains.com. I saw domains as  incomeproperty.com to buyandlease.com. I saw domains as foreigninvestments.com that would aid foreignrelations.com and capable of worldbroadcasting.com. The cheapest.com properties.com in the world and wanted to be the modelhomes.com worldchamp.com.

I had productstosell.com but I had to worry about protecting.com them as they were unsafe.com from the cyberbully.com and hijackers.com. It forced me to become an expert on trademarking.com. Because these asses.com were the biggestjerks.com and biggestassholes.com and would need a courtorder.com issued by a grandjury.com and then gosueme.com because bribes.com or a silly ceaseanddesist.com letter was just going to be my bestlaugh.com. They were nothing more than a rodent.com to me and I became their biggestmistake.com. Thanks to hallofshame.com and RDNH rulings.com I was able to give some lawtips.com to the inexperienced.com instead of lipservice.com.

They would bitch.com that I was a cybersquatter.com and hoarding.com undevelopeddomains.com and that was unnatural.com but I was just oildrilling.com not even posting realestateforsale.com.

The biggestplayers.com came to wager.me and it cost many thousands in protecting.com me and you and hopefully the futureanalysis.com would support that. My ladygodiva.com vs Campbell's;  My goofoff.com vs Lilly Inc.; My carnivalsucks.com vs Carnival Cruise Lines; My daisydukes.com vs Warner Brothers; My tstv.com vs Toronto Star Newspapers. lipservice.com vs who even cares? Slam Bam corporatebullies.com!! I won the biggestcontests.com  because I had the biggestballs.com before there was a UDRP process and saveme.com vs the world when there was one! NEXT!

What I was doing was topsecret.com but I had a workschedule.com to worksmarter.com as I could workanywhere.com and reside in the worldsbestplacestolive.com because I wanted to go to the worldsbesttravelspots.com and knew that if I had long term aspirations workingoff.com the Internet, the generalpublic.com, who may be the jurors.com, would understand the uniquemomentinhistory.com and sense of urgency at making my stake and would like to be filthy.com rich too. It's a kinkyfantasy.com that most people understand just like folks like freeshit.com and the dailydouble.com. I decided to gobet.com on it because ihavefaithin.com and I could buynowpaylater.com because Netsol had no xxxcashier.com to pay for ricksdomains.com and that gave me availablecredit.com that I would have never had.

When I was born cheapland.com was inherited.com. It was all sold and owned. There was no more freeadmission.com or freenights.com. But I did see that virtualbillboards.com could be planted throughout the world and I could compete with the worldsbestsalesmen.com with the worldsbeststuff.com. That gave me the bestodds.com that dailyevents.com would help me geteven.com and then use demonstrations.com by famousamericans.com at tradeshows.com and chatboards.com to getexcited.com about the hottestdomains.com where companies were exhibiting.com.

I don't eat russiancaviar.com but I can sell some. I don't wear cubiczirconia.com but I can sell some. I know nothing about uniformrentals.com but it could become a full time career. I am not into wholesalejewelry.com but I can get the bestvalues.com with jades.com and sparklers.com and even a pinkdiamond.com. I can buythat.com and then iexport.com.  I can buywholesale.com and buyworldwide.com. I could buycloseouts.com and I can buylobsters.com, buysoap.com, buyclothing.com, and look for the biggestdiscounts.com and clearences.com and buybargains.com then sellproducts.com and and sellthings.com like spyingdevices.com and startmakingmoney.com with highprofit.com specialties.com in 100 different industrials.com that delivers.com specialpages.com for a specialeffect.com then solicit.com thebiggest.com and bestsponsors.com with bestreferralprograms.com with the bestratings.com to send my besttraffic.com to and closethedeal.com

I may have had the worstsites.com but the enterbutton.com that led to the virtualtours.com made me millions by affiliateadvertising.com and I was still getting screwed.com by the biggestwinners.com with the biggestripoffs.com. They never saw domaintraffic.com before and that potenttraffic.com provoked a good screwing.com and fakeout.com every so often for my "Fake" traffic. I would say screwyou.com and tell them if they continue with sneaky.com stupidmoves.com like cheating.com me that they will earn a spot on unfairbusiness.org and I would make them the mostfamousperson.com on the internet with their bigripoff.com and let folks know what whores.com they were and that gave me the power to be an sob.com and I was not faking.com. They put me in the virtualcollections.com business.

I guess I was a shameful.com banker.com who was overeating.com with a wad.com of money and looking for honest webmasterprograms.com so I could become an authorizedreseller.com and promote advertisedspecials.com and add to my christmasclub.com. I started buying adultbooks.com at wholesaleprices.com looking at personalads.com because I knew singlepeople.com wanted to look for greatass.com and getlaid.com. The only way to make extracash.com back then was with porncash.com because there was no mainstreamamerica.com in 1996 and 1997. Google did not exist. So a dailyprayer.com would not even get you a freephonecall.com or cheapestfares.com if you are goingplaces.com like grandcentralstation.com fordirections.com on the way to see hitshows.com.

males.com wants.com hotdates.com with sexychicks.com, naughtwives.com,  and a cutie.com doing sexydancing.com. Some liked watching.com nakedbabes.com and booty.com and the sexiestegirls.com and became sexaddicts.com. They would wfeswap.com, then go to stripclubs.com and pickupjoints.com and look at the livebabes.com in the buff.com as they flaunt.com their sleazy.com shortskirts.com while faking.com hornyguys.com that they are their sexualfantasy.com before the vicesquad.com showed up.

prettymodels.com and partygirls.com were everywhere. men.com think they can makeout.com because they think they are a stud.com, get horny.com and start seducing.com the prettyladies.com and if I write anymore it will be x-rated.com and the prudes.com will get upset even tho whore.com, slut.com, vagina.com and virgins.com etc. are used all day everyday on TV that our kids gowatch.com and they are not censoring.com them and either are the grandparents.com because they are just wickedteens.com hotrodding.com to the stripjoints.com to have a cold-beer.com and make xxxvideos.com.

Makes you startthinking.com so startthere.com and startsearching.com. startoff.com by startworking.com so you can startvoting.com so that you can startout.com not being a starvingartist.com because you needmoremoney.com and then you can get preapprovedloans.com, speak to financialconsultants.com, taxplanners.com and become a stockinsider.com and maybe even a domainking.com and gofirstclass.com as you goup.com the ladder.

So after 20 years they can stoplaughing.com at the craziest.com idea because theking.com has written salestips.com on his tipsheet.com that many a domainseller.com like me have used to make the year's biggestsale.com. I'm not bluffing.com and ireport.com I can make you that can give me some bragging.com rights while retiredinboca.com relaxing on my casualfurniture.com and watching funnymovies.com

This all just reconfirmed.com that typeins.com were not a violation.com and realeyeballs.com by a realliveperson.com capable of finding and previewing.com realistic.com and reallygooddeals.com at the virtualshowroom.com  looking for dailyspecials.com and someday folks could even have a birthdayparty.com then start foolingaround.com at the punchbowl.com.  Just saywhen.com. That's virtualhorsepower.com says rickschwartz.com

And now that you made it through all of that I hope it brought a few smiles to your face and a few memories. Now on to my 20-year anniversary  posts next week..... Happy Holidays and the best to you in 2016 and beyond!

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.

On The Record! Jaguar and Land Rover Added to RDNH List! #45

Evening Folks!!

I am sure you are sick of reading these and I am sick of posting them. But what has to be has to still be done to stop Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

As I posted on Monday, Jaguar/Landrover is the most recent Fortune 500 Company found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. They Join Procter & Gamble as the 2nd fortune 500 to risk tarnishing their respective brands this year. Will there be a company wide shake up? Time will tell.

The attempt was so blatant, that the panel found for the respondent without the respondent even answering the complaint. A HUGE VICTORY for all!! But this is a really  GREAT case because there was no response by the domain owner and the panel still found Jaguar/LandRover guilty of RDNH. Jennifer M. Hetu of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Michigan, USA got defeated by a ghost. How does a debacle like this unfold?

I will repost the following post each and every time there is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Decision. The best thing domain owners can do is Tweet, Like, Post and/or Share. So just don't sit there! You CAN do something to circulate these offenders. So do it! That's REAL SEO! I need your HELP. I can't do this alone. Charity starts at home and that means protecting what is yours. 

Want to stop RDNH and get the $$$ instead of a NAF or WIPO action? THIS is the way to start. Someday there WILL be a legal and CRIMINAL penalty but until then there IS a social penalty if YOU CHOOSE. And believe me, the social penalty is MUCH more severe than a fine that can be easily absorbed and forgotten about. This is PERMANENT! THEY have to live with the social consequences of their actions. The best thing you can do is Tweet, Like and/or Share instead of throwing your hands up in the air and doing NOTHING! Doing nothing is what these little pricks count on! Let them know! I can only do so much and I need your help to DEFEAT this practice.

 

Morning Folks!!

There really is a penalty for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and it is far more severe than anything monetary. I have been defending my domains from predators and would-be Domain Name Hijackers for over 14 years. When the Saveme.com case (Start at bottom of link page) came to me as a GIFT about 16 months ago I RELISHED my opportunity to change things. It was such a slam dunk that I was going to make this case an example for others and a warning of the SEVERE CONSEQUENCES that come with it. I may lose a domain, but a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER loses their entire reputation and it can't be repaired.

When I was a kid my parents and my teachers would scare me to be good as they would tell me if I was bad it would be on my "Permanent Record". Well when you commit a crime, it is on your permanent record. Misbehaving in school? Not so much.

So I have used the SaveMe.com case as well as others like Procter and Gamble to illustrate just how bad a decision trying to STEAL somebody else's domain really is. And so I did. I PROMISED to make Márcio Mello Chaves FAMOUS!! Promise kept baby!!

Go to Google or go to Bing and search for Márcio Mello Chaves or Marcio Mello Chaves.

THAT is how SEO REALLY works!!!

RELEVANCY!! Be relevant and you will have no problem being searched. Marcio Mello Chavez is relevant to Ricksblog.com and more importantly to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. How does he EVER fix it?? It's a permanent record of FACT!

Search procter and gamble domains. You no longer get a list of domains they own.

Search Jaguar or LandRover. Because of this, they too are subject to being reminded that what they did was so over the top it is permanent.

Tell me how much it is worth to undo what can't be undone and they are responsible for?

And reputation management software?? HATE IT! And thankfully it does not work! Most folks don't need to repair the reputations. They just do things the right way to begin with. Not so much in corporate America.

So I believe the SOCIAL PENALTY far outweighs anything else. A $100k fine is nothing when you talk of a 7 figure domain and a multi-billion dollar company. A win could be viewed as a "Discount".  But when you have to deal with the SOCIAL FALLOUT, it is MUCH more SEVERE and I am proving it!

The Scarlett Letter of Domain Hijacking will follow those throughout their entire lifetimes and beyond. Here are MY POSTS about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and those involved. The NEXT guy DESERVES what he gets because he has been warned and I am going to change their futures more than they can change their futures.

So this July 4th I feel like this year has been the turning point in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). And yes, I like to write out in full Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as many times as I can to associate a name with the deed! My only obligation to a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker is to make them FAMOUS! They try to destroy MY BUSINESS or YOUR BUSINESS?? Then they MUST live with the PERMANENT consequences. Did they show you mercy? Well they are warned and they OWN their decisions.

Did the biggest Company Shake up in 100 YEARS at Procter and Gamble have something to do with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking? Don't discount the possibility! Somebody made the decision to SOIL their companies stellar name. In government it may be overlooked or you get promoted. In business, you get you ASS kicked to the curb with all involved! And deservedly so!

I have 18 years and many millions of dollars invested in my online business as well as many of you readers. So if some IDIOT thinks he can just STEAL our hard work by hiring some hotshot and thinking $15k is all the skin they have in the game, then they have to live with the fallout and that fallout can be severe and  life changing. That's what BOTH the attorney and the client get from now on because attorney's know better at this point in time. So the job of the attorney is not be part of a hijacking and to AID and ABET. It is to educate their client or FIRE their client. 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 AID and ABET. And 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. You have been hired as a contract hit man 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. The MOMENT you go along with that, you are just as guilty because YOU KNOW what you are doing. It is premeditated. You are just as guilty aren't you my attorney??

Wrong minded? ok. But THAT is EXACTLY the way I see the roles and THAT is the passion I will write with every single time. Remember we are not talking about an honest difference of opinion where you need a ruing. We are talking when that ruling comes in that STATES that you have ABUSED the process. For that Mr. Attorney, YOU will be held accountable. Your choice? Tell your client the FACTS or FIRE your client. It may be the most important decision you ever make in life. And I get to write about YOU and mention NAMES whenever I feel like.

Molly Megee Hankins and Heitor Chavez are examples of what I am talking about as they represented Reverse Domain Name Hijackers and knew better! I will add more to the list as I look through the decisions to see which lawyers abused the process. 

I am going to stop this practice in it's tracks! If you are a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER or are found GUILTY of ABUSING the process, then You and your attorney will be known far and wide and throughout the world and it will follow you folks like a shadow on sunny days AND cloudy days and even in the dark!

Then you have the KING of all. Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL who represented Procter and Gamble. Have THEY been fired? Let me give them a second mention Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. I would assume these are top notch folks. HOW could they ALLOW their client to walk into this? I guess it would  take real balls to fire P&G. They might lose the account? Wonder if they were fired?

So if you are being unfairly threatened about your domain name, just point them here. It is FREE and EFFECTIVE because it is all based on FACT and PASSION! Give them a little window into how things may unfold because when YOU WIN and they get found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, I am going to write about them right here and make them famous too!

And what can you do? Circulate this post. Retweet it. Like it. Comment on Linkedin. Circulate it. THAT is a very small effort to help protect your livelihood and your assets that costs nothing and helps put these folks on notice. THAT is how to help STOP Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Rick Schwartz

 

Here is the current list I have of RDNH cases with our newest inductee. This list that the NEXT SCHMUCK gets to join and LIVE WITH!

So from now on we must ROAST these Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH). Ah you say but Rick what have you been doing if you are not already roasting them? Well there are some innovative ways we will begin to get the attention of these companies. But we will leave that for another day because this CONTENT is right here and not going away anytime soon.

Harsh? You bet!! These folks join Procter and Gamble and Jaguar/Landrover and many others. But P&G BOUGHT the domain name later on.

Try to hijack a domain name and you will be shamed publicly because public opinion is the way to stop bad behavior when the laws out there are not adequate enough to do the job. Each of these companies will receive an increasingly HARSHER post from me because they are not ignorant of what they are doing. In almost every case they KNEW what they were doing and their INTENT was to STEAL using a governing body as their pawns!

The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies and individuals as well as the attorney's that KNOWINGLY aid and abet because they KNOW BETTER. They are all now BRANDED in the most despicable way and so all the $$$ they spent to familiarize us with their products just got a mighty damaging blow.

Well there have been more findings of Reverse Domain Hijacking in the last 12 months that any preceding 12 month period. So the cat is out of the bag and they can no longer fool panels into being their unknowing accomplice.

So when I get threats, THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN LOOK FORWARD TO

I have 45 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 150 or more. 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. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!

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. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call "Capitalism" and NEGOTIATE!!

Otherwise you get to be labeled what "I" want to label you as and you will be tagged with that DESERVED recognition each and every time a new client does a search to find the good, the bad and the ugly. Want to know which group "Fuckers" will end up in?

And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedious job of making REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING a CRIMINAL offense as we move forward.

If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.

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

But in even a bigger case, Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

Case #1 is our Friend Scott Day of Digimedia who won a $100k+ judgment againstGOFORIT 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 The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America 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 under USD 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."

Case #35 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 it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Hatami of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA.  “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. "The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”

Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. "Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better." Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and "counsel should have known better"

Case #38 Opulence.com Complainant is Horizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA.
Horizon Publishing, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is the latest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER by the governing body.

Case #39 Avayo.net Complainant is Avaya Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph Englander of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Florida, USA. “The Respondent correctly notes that the Complainant has previously filed domain name cases, and lost in two of such cases when it brought proceedings against legitimate businesses such as the Respondent.  See Avaya Inc. v. Sudhir Sazena, FA 1229266 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2008); and Avaya Inc. v. Moayyad Hamad, FA 1456063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2012). ” “Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to hijack Respondent’s domain name” Avaya Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker 

Case #40 hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com. Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names.

Case #41 Complainant is the Honorable Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, Texas, United States of America, represented by LeClairRyan, United States of America." Ron Paul has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. I certainly invite the congressman and/or the domain owner to comment here or even write a guest blog post. 

Case #42  The Complainant is Ryan P. Boggs of Los Angeles, California, United States of America, represented by Molly Megee Hankins, ESQ., United States of America. The three person panel found (pdf) that Boggs “engaged in duplicitous dealings with the Respondent in relation to potential purchase of the disputed domain name”. "Complaint makes express and implied assertions that are false. These false assertions might have misled the Panel had not the Respondent provided the evidence, readily available to the Complainant, that refutes these assertions. Furthermore, it is simply not fair to require the Respondent to provide evidence establishing that the Complainant’s case is without basis when the Complainant must have, or at least should have, known this fact. The egregiousness of these deficiencies of the Complaint is compounded by the fact that the Complainant was represented by counsel. "

Case #43 Complainant is Aptus Tech LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Max Moskowitz, of Ostrolenk Faber LLP, New York, USA.  Respondent is Name Administration Inc. (BVI)(“Respondent”), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA

Aptus Tech LLC represented by Max Moskowitz, of Ostrolenk Faber LLP, has now been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. (RDNH)

"In this case, the evidence indicates that Complainant clearly knew that the disputed domain name was registered many years before it could establish rights in the KLIPZ mark and, thus, that it would not be able to establish that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, which is one of elements one must establish in order to prevail under the Policy."

Case #44 Consuela, LLC  represented by Erik Paul Belt of McCarter English, LLP, Massachusetts, USA found GUILTY Reverse Domain Name Hijacking of Consuela.com Respondent is Alberta Hot Rods (“Respondent”), represented by Ari Goldberger of Esqwire.com Law Firm, New Jersey, USA.

"According to the majority of the Panel, not only did the Complainant present its Complaint when it was obvious that it could not succeed, it actually pressed its case by submitting an Additional Submission which did not address the key issue raised by the Respondent.  The Complainant thus harassed the Respondent by pursing the Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.

A minority of the Panel is of the view that reverse domain name hijacking should not be found without evidence of some knowing effort to seize someone else's intellectual property.  However, the minority accepts the majority’s view.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to the hijack the Respondent’s domain name."

Case #45 Jaguar/Land Rover is the latest to have been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) on the domain name MountainRovers.com. Complainant is Jaguar Land Rover Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer M. Hetu of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Michigan, USA.

The attempt was so blatant, that the panel found for the respondent without the respondent even answering the complaint. A HUGE VICTORY for all!! But this is a really  GREAT case because there was no response by the domain owner and the panel still found Jaguar/LandRover guilty of RDNH. Jennifer M. Hetu of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Michigan, USA got defeated by a ghost. How does a debacle like this unfold? You assume you are dealing with top notch professional folks at every level.

 

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

 

2 Years Since First Contact About SaveMe.com

Morning Folks!!

2 years and HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of potential customers ago (August 2011) I had my first contact with the infamous Poster Boy, Márcio Mello Chaves.

7 months later I am served with a WIPO action.

So here is THE blast from the past that articulates how this will all unfold before it actually did.

My friend never asked himself the single most important question. "What is the value of a new customer?"

Since it has been my experience that a bounty of $3-$5/per new lead is paid, then I can estimate just how much this POOR decision not to engage me on a business level has cost his company. Plus the loss of time and growth.  And of course some may read the story and conclude there are other companies to do business with. DUH!!!

See I am about SALES and this was his single biggest, NON ENDING, reservoir of new customers for him anywhere in the world and he poisoned that well because instead of getting NEW customers, saveme.com just tells the CONCLUSION of a FAMED REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER and then the chips fall where they may. That is the risk a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER (RDNH) takes. The fallout is never ending.

But it all started with this post in March 2012:

http://www.ricksblog.com/2012/03/marcio-mello-chaves-is-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-and-i-am-going-to-make-him-famous/

Decision with this post in June 2012:

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

And won't even end with this post today. It lives on because Saveme.com is the lightning rod that protects other domains. And that has GREAT value!

And while Márcio Mello Chaves has never contacted me since the decision, I am hopeful that one day saveme.com can become a profitable domain again. But until then, it serves a much bigger purpose!

Rick Schwartz

 

Consuela, LLC represented by Erik Paul Belt of McCarter English, LLP, MA, USA, GUILTY, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking of Consuela.com

Morning Folks!!

Another great day for domainers!

Guys, your NAMES are in Lights!! Congrats! Way to go! Proud???

Hey Morons, it's called capitalism! If you want something you PAY for it you don't try and abuse the systems so you can STEAL it. So now you have to live with the consequences of you being labled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker" forever.

Consuela, LLC  represented by Erik Paul Belt of McCarter English, LLP, Massachusetts, USA.  Live with it!! Hope you are PROUD! You are now case #44 below.

I will repost the following post each and every time there is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Decision. The best thing domain owners can do is Tweet, Like, Post and/or Share. So just don't sit there! You CAN do something to circulate these offenders. So do it! That's REAL SEO! I need your HELP. I can't do this alone. Charity starts at home and that means protecting what is yours. 

Want to stop RDNH and get the $$$ instead of a NAF or WIPO action? THIS is the way to start. Someday there WILL be a legal and CRIMINAL penalty but until then there IS a social penalty if YOU CHOOSE. And believe me, the social penalty is MUCH more severe than a fine that can be easily absorbed and forgotten about. This is PERMANENT! THEY have to live with the social consequences of their actions. The best thing you can do is Tweet, Like and/or Share instead of throwing your hands up in the air and doing NOTHING! Doing nothing is what these little pricks count on! Let them know! I can only do so much and I need your help to DEFEAT this practice.

Consuela, LLC  represented by Erik Paul Belt of McCarter English, LLP, Massachusetts, USA found GUILTY Reverse Domain Name Hijacking of Consuela.com

Morning Folks!!

There really is a penalty for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and it is far more severe than anything monetary. I have been defending my domains from predators and would-be Domain Name Hijackers for over 14 years. When the Saveme.com case (Start at bottom of link page) came to me as a GIFT about 16 months ago I RELISHED my opportunity to change things. It was such a slam dunk that I was going to make this case an example for others and a warning of the SEVERE CONSEQUENCES that come with it. I may lose a domain, but a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER loses their entire reputation and it can't be repaired.

When I was a kid my parents and my teachers would scare me to be good as they would tell me if I was bad it would be on my "Permanent Record". Well when you commit a crime, it is on your permanent record. Misbehaving in school? Not so much.

So I have used the SaveMe.com case as well as others like Procter and Gamble to illustrate just how bad a decision trying to STEAL somebody else's domain really is. And so I did. I PROMISED to make Márcio Mello Chaves FAMOUS!! Promise kept baby!!

Go to Google or go to Bing and search for Márcio Mello Chaves or Marcio Mello Chaves.

THAT is how SEO REALLY works!!!

RELEVANCY!! Be relevant and you will have no problem being searched. Marcio Mello Chavez is relevant to Ricksblog.com and more importantly to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. How does he EVER fix it?? It's a permanent record of FACT!

Search procter and gamble domains. You no longer get a list of domains they own.

So I believe the SOCIAL PENALTY far outweighs anything else. A $100k fine is nothing when you talk of a 7 figure domain and a multi-billion dollar company. A win could be viewed as a "Discount".  But when you have to deal with the SOCIAL FALLOUT, it is MUCH more SEVERE and I am proving it!

The Scarlett Letter of Domain Hijacking will follow those throughout their entire lifetimes and beyond. Here are MY POSTS about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and those involved. The NEXT guy DESERVES what he gets because he has been warned and I am going to change their futures more than they can change their futures.

So this July 4th I feel like this year has been the turning point in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). And yes, I like to write out in full Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as many times as I can to associate a name with the deed! My only obligation to a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker is to make them FAMOUS! They try to destroy MY BUSINESS or YOUR BUSINESS?? Then they MUST live with the PERMANENT consequences. Did they show you mercy? Well they are warned and they OWN their decisions.

Did the biggest Company Shake up in 100 YEARS at Procter and Gamble have something to do with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking? Don't discount the possibility! Somebody made the decision to SOIL their companies stellar name. In government it may be overlooked or you get promoted. In business, you get you ASS kicked to the curb with all involved! And deservedly so!

I have 18 years and many millions of dollars invested in my online business as well as many of you readers. So if some IDIOT thinks he can just STEAL our hard work by hiring some hotshot and thinking $15k is all the skin they have in the game, then they have to live with the fallout and that fallout can be severe and  life changing. That's what BOTH the attorney and the client get from now on because attorney's know better at this point in time. So the job of the attorney is not be part of a hijacking and to AID and ABET. It is to educate their client or FIRE their client. 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 AID and ABET. And 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. You have been hired as a contract hit man 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. The MOMENT you go along with that, you are just as guilty because YOU KNOW what you are doing. It is premeditated. You are just as guilty aren't you my attorney??

Wrong minded? ok. But THAT is EXACTLY the way I see the roles and THAT is the passion I will write with every single time. Remember we are not talking about an honest difference of opinion where you need a ruing. We are talking when that ruling comes in that STATES that you have ABUSED the process. For that Mr. Attorney, YOU will be held accountable. Your choice? Tell your client the FACTS or FIRE your client. It may be the most important decision you ever make in life. And I get to write about YOU and mention NAMES whenever I feel like.

Molly Megee Hankins and Heitor Chavez are examples of what I am talking about as they represented Reverse Domain Name Hijackers and knew better! I will add more to the list as I look through the decisions to see which lawyers abused the process. 

I am going to stop this practice in it's tracks! If you are a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER or are found GUILTY of ABUSING the process, then You and your attorney will be known far and wide and throughout the world and it will follow you folks like a shadow on sunny days AND cloudy days and even in the dark!

Then you have the KING of all. Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL who represented Procter and Gamble. Have THEY been fired? Let me give them a second mention Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. I would assume these are top notch folks. HOW could they ALLOW their client to walk into this? I guess it would  take real balls to fire P&G. They might lose the account? Wonder if they were fired?

So if you are being unfairly threatened about your domain name, just point them here. It is FREE and EFFECTIVE because it is all based on FACT and PASSION! Give them a little window into how things may unfold because when YOU WIN and they get found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, I am going to write about them right here and make them famous too!

And what can you do? Circulate this post. Retweet it. Like it. Comment on Linkedin. Circulate it. THAT is a very small effort to help protect your livelihood and your assets that costs nothing and helps put these folks on notice. THAT is how to help STOP Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Rick Schwartz

Here is the current list I have of RDNH cases with our newest inductee. This list that the NEXT SCHMUCK gets to join and LIVE WITH!

So from now on we must ROAST these Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH). Ah you say but Rick what have you been doing if you are not already roasting them? Well there are some innovative ways we will begin to get the attention of these companies. But we will leave that for another day because this CONTENT is right here and not going away anytime soon.

Harsh? You bet!! These folks join Procter and Gamble and any others. But P&G BOUGHT the domain name later on.

Try to hijack a domain name and you will be shamed publicly because public opinion is the way to stop bad behavior when the laws out there are not adequate enough to do the job. Each of these companies will receive an increasingly HARSHER post from me because they are not ignorant of what they are doing. In almost every case they KNEW what they were doing and their INTENT was to STEAL using a governing body as their pawns!

The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies and individuals as well as the attorney's that KNOWINGLY aid and abet because they KNOW BETTER. They are all now BRANDED in the most despicable way and so all the $$$ they spent to familiarize us with their products just got a mighty damaging blow.

Well there have been more findings of Reverse Domain Hijacking in the last 12 months that any preceding 12 month period. So the cat is out of the bag and they can no longer fool panels into being their unknowing accomplice.

So when I get threats, THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN LOOK FORWARD TO

I have 43 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129 or more. 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. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!

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. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call "Capitalism" and NEGOTIATE!!

Otherwise you get to be labeled what "I" want to label you as and you will be tagged with that DESERVED recognition each and every time a new client does a search to find the good, the bad and the ugly. Want to know which group "Fuckers" will end up in?

And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedious job of making REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING a CRIMINAL offense as we move forward.

If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.

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

But in even a bigger case, Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

Case #1 is our Friend Scott Day of Digimedia who won a $100k+ judgment againstGOFORIT 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 The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America 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 under USD 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."

Case #35 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 it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Abhyanker of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA.  “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. "The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”

Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. "Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better." Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and "counsel should have known better"

Case #38 Opulence.com Complainant is Horizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA.
Horizon Publishing, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is the latest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER by the governing body.

Case #39 Avayo.net Complainant is Avaya Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph Englander of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Florida, USA. “The Respondent correctly notes that the Complainant has previously filed domain name cases, and lost in two of such cases when it brought proceedings against legitimate businesses such as the Respondent.  See Avaya Inc. v. Sudhir Sazena, FA 1229266 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2008); and Avaya Inc. v. Moayyad Hamad, FA 1456063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2012). ” “Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to hijack Respondent’s domain name” Avaya Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker 

Case #40 hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com. Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names.

Case #41 Complainant is the Honorable Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, Texas, United States of America, represented by LeClairRyan, United States of America." Ron Paul has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. I certainly invite the congressman and/or the domain owner to comment here or even write a guest blog post. 

Case #42  The Complainant is Ryan P. Boggs of Los Angeles, California, United States of America, represented by Molly Megee Hankins, ESQ., United States of America. The three person panel found (pdf) that Boggs “engaged in duplicitous dealings with the Respondent in relation to potential purchase of the disputed domain name”. "Complaint makes express and implied assertions that are false. These false assertions might have misled the Panel had not the Respondent provided the evidence, readily available to the Complainant, that refutes these assertions. Furthermore, it is simply not fair to require the Respondent to provide evidence establishing that the Complainant’s case is without basis when the Complainant must have, or at least should have, known this fact. The egregiousness of these deficiencies of the Complaint is compounded by the fact that the Complainant was represented by counsel. "

Case #43 Complainant is Aptus Tech LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Max Moskowitz, of Ostrolenk Faber LLP, New York, USA.  Respondent is Name Administration Inc. (BVI)(“Respondent”), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA

Aptus Tech LLC represented by Max Moskowitz, of Ostrolenk Faber LLP, has now been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. (RDNH)

"In this case, the evidence indicates that Complainant clearly knew that the disputed domain name was registered many years before it could establish rights in the KLIPZ mark and, thus, that it would not be able to establish that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, which is one of elements one must establish in order to prevail under the Policy."

Case #44 Consuela, LLC  represented by Erik Paul Belt of McCarter English, LLP, Massachusetts, USA found GUILTY Reverse Domain Name Hijacking of Consuela.com Respondent is Alberta Hot Rods (“Respondent”), represented by Ari Goldberger of Esqwire.com Law Firm, New Jersey, USA.

"According to the majority of the Panel, not only did the Complainant present its Complaint when it was obvious that it could not succeed, it actually pressed its case by submitting an Additional Submission which did not address the key issue raised by the Respondent.  The Complainant thus harassed the Respondent by pursing the Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.

A minority of the Panel is of the view that reverse domain name hijacking should not be found without evidence of some knowing effort to seize someone else's intellectual property.  However, the minority accepts the majority’s view.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to the hijack the Respondent’s domain name."

 

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

 

Reverse Domain Name Hijackings 2000-2013. All 143 Cases Sorted by Year.

Morning Folks,

The gamble is still in their favor but our job is to skewer the folks so bad that any rational person or entity would think twice before trying to STEAL the property of others by abusing the system. These cases are all OUTRAGEOUS! Many of the attorneys were complicit with this scheme and they too should and are being outed.

I want to thank Nat Cohen for allowing me to republish his RDNH.COM list of ALL known Reverse Domain Name Hijacking cases. I am hoping to include the company and the attorney when I have some time. 2002 saw the most RDNH cases with 20. So far in 2013 we have 13 such findings as compared to 14 for all of 2012.

The list below has no emotion. Just the links and the facts. Leave it to me to provide the commentary.

What can you do? CIRCULATE!! Tweet, Like, Share! Or don't complain.

Rick Schwartz






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Domain Venue Case Number/Reason Decision Date
qtrade.com eResolution AF-0169 6/19/2000
k2r.com WIPO D2000-0622 8/23/2000
safaricasino.com eResolution AF-2088 10/4/2000
smartdesign.com WIPO D2000-0993 10/18/2000
ezstreet.net WIPO legitimate interest - complainant knew 11/13/2000
tradesite.com eResolution AF-0473 12/15/2000
dw.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; delay 1/2/2001
goldline.com WIPO D2000-1151 1/4/2001
onu.com eResolution AF-0672 2/16/2001
ode.com WIPO D2001-0074 5/1/2001
moneyplanet.com/travelplanet.com WIPO D2001-0217 5/7/2001
formulationworkstation.com WIPO legitimate interest - complainant knew 6/18/2001
armani.com WIPO misrepresentation 7/20/2001
itmetrixx.com WIPO D2001-0668 8/2/2001
cream.com WIPO TM - not valid; deception; legitimate rights - complainant knew 9/28/2001
maggi.com WIPO D2001-0916 10/12/2001
aspengrove.com WIPO TM - not valid; domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew 10/17/2001
intelilink.com NAF FA0109000100124 11/5/2001
thefetishfactory.com NAF FA0108000099610 11/8/2001
torres.com WIPO D2001-1200 12/19/2001
pizzashoppe.com WIPO D2001-1353 1/11/2002
supremo.com WIPO D2001-1357 2/15/2002
prom.com WIPO D2001-1154 3/4/2002
arche.com NAF plan "B" 3/13/2002
goodtidings.com NAF FA0203000105749 4/9/2002
curbking.com NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; misrepresentation 5/10/2002
paparazzo.com WIPO D2002-0189 5/29/2002
innovativemerchantsolutions.biz and others NAF prior court case; harassment 6/4/2002
ntmailserver.com WIPO D2002-0277 6/24/2002
scubadiving.biz WIPO DBIZ2002-00153 6/28/2002
imode.biz WIPO DBIZ2002-00141 6/30/2002
hemp.biz NAF (STOP) misrepresentation 7/9/2002
ikb.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew 7/23/2002
411.biz WIPO TM - not valid; deception 8/2/2002
shoes.biz WIPO DBIZ2002-00245 8/12/2002
sfm.com WIPO D2002-0535 9/13/2002
picoliter.com NAF FA0208000122205 10/23/2002
windsor.com WIPO D2002-0839 11/14/2002
dvla.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; plan "B" 11/27/2002
newzealand.com WIPO D2002-0754 11/27/2002
centrelecorbusier.com and others WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew 4/7/2003
nishan.com WIPO D2003-0204 5/1/2003
futureworld.com WIPO bad faith - no evidence 7/18/2003
netdeposit.com WIPO D2003-0365 7/22/2003
usdocuments.com WIPO D2003-0583 9/17/2003
policeauction.com NAF TM - not valid; domain first 3/9/2004
carsales.com WIPO domain first; misrepresentation 4/8/2004
carbwatchers.com NAF domain first 5/28/2004
stmoritz.com WIPO D2004-0158 6/14/2004
mexico.com WIPO D2004-0242 7/19/2004
gtatravels.com WIPO D2004-0741 12/16/2004
kiwi.com WIPO D2004-0848 1/4/2005
mess.com WIPO D2004-0964 1/25/2005
mountainviewcountryclub.com NAF domain first; TM - not valid; misrepresentation 3/28/2005
multicast.com NAF domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew; misrepresentation 4/28/2005
aljazeera.com WIPO domain first; delay; bad faith - no evidence 7/19/2005
itravelinsured.com NAF FA0508000545210 10/11/2005
primalquest.com WIPO D2005-1083 12/15/2005
aroma.com NAF domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew 1/16/2006
penthouseboutique.com NAF misrepresentation 5/26/2006
downunder.travel WIPO TM - not valid; misrepresentation 6/6/2006
rohl.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew 7/12/2006
dreamgirls.com WIPO domain first; delay 8/10/2006
trailblazer.com WIPO D2006-0875 8/25/2006
proto.com WIPO D2006-0905 10/10/2006
zounds.com NAF TM - not valid; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence 11/24/2006
primeconnections.com NAF domain first; TM - not valid 12/18/2006
cbpublishing.com NAF deception; misrepresentation; TM - not valid 4/18/2007
superblock.com NAF misrepresentation; TM - not valid; domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew 9/11/2007
fcc.com WIPO legitimate interest - complainant knew; misrepresentation 10/7/2007
mycpa.com WIPO D2007-1171 10/12/2007
onephone.com WIPO D2007-1576 12/22/2007
rebelde.com WIPO D2007-1525 12/27/2007
liquidnutrition.com WIPO D2007-1598 1/28/2008
ironarc.com WIPO D2007-1611 1/29/2008
enki.com NAF domain first 3/28/2008
modularsdirect.com and other NAF domain first 4/8/2008
decal.com WIPO domain first; bad faith - no evidence 6/11/2008
altru.net NAF misrepresentation 7/15/2008
sfm.com NAF FA0805001183176 7/25/2008
collectivemedia.com WIPO domain first 7/31/2008
hero.com WIPO D2008-0779 8/13/2008
porta-jon.com WIPO D2008-1043 8/22/2008
onemodels.com WIPO D2008-1173 10/24/2008
my-life.com WIPO D2008-1313 10/27/2008
pokerhost.net WIPO D2008-1518 12/1/2008
made-from-india.com/indiamart.com NAF TM - not valid; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence 2/18/2009
mathieson.com WIPO D2009-0087 3/23/2009
versacapital.com NAF FA0903001250988 4/14/2009
mirabella.com WIPO D2009-0673 7/29/2009
長江.com (YangtzeRiver).com WIPO D2009-0540 7/29/2009
urbanlogic.com WIPO D2009-0862 8/17/2009
hotcam.com NAF FA0907001273417 8/24/2009
lincs.com NAF FA0907001273907 9/3/2009
rain.com NAF FA0908001279419 9/29/2009
bwired.com WIPO domain first 10/16/2009
bsa.com NAF TM - not valid; domain first; bad faith - no evidence 11/19/2009
ardyssbodymagicshop.com NAF misrepresentation 1/14/2010
realtyalliance.com NAF FA0912001296997 2/12/2010
adventurerv.com NAF bad faith - no evidence 5/3/2010














































































































































































































































































































Domain Venue Case Number/Reason Decision Date
kokeshi.com WIPO D2010-0606 6/10/2010
genomatix.com WIPO bad faith - no evidence 7/8/2010
tinyprint.com NAF domain first 10/8/2010
virtualexpo.com WIPO domain first 10/8/2010
energyfix.com NAF domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; delay 10/22/2010
xpand.com WIPO D2010-1519 11/16/2010
webpass.com WIPO D2010-1796 12/2/2010
3dcafe.com NAF TM - not valid 12/20/2010
cinemacity.com WIPO domain first 2/2/2011
pokersrategy.com and others WIPO D2011-0005 3/8/2011
shoeby.com WIPO misrepresentation; legitimate rights - complainant knew 3/20/2011
streetwave.com CAC 100220 4/8/2011
viking.org NAF FA1104001383534 5/31/2011
futuris.com WIPO D2011-0596 6/20/2011
unive.com WIPO D2011-0636 6/30/2011
iuno.com WIPO bad faith - no evidence; domain first 7/4/2011
shoppingdopovo.com WIPO D2011-0734 7/18/2011
maisonduemonde.com WIPO D2011-0956 7/28/2011
fedtax.com NAF legitimate interest - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; delay 9/29/2011
w59.com NAF FA1110001413550 11/30/2011
ecase.com NAF domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence 12/1/2011
planate.com WIPO D2011-1535 12/6/2011
hooman.com NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; domain first 4/16/2012
dextra.com WIPO plan "B"; misrepresentation; bad faith - no evidence 4/19/2012
edgepos.com WIPO domain first; bad faith - no evidence 4/21/2012
elk.com WIPO domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; plan "B" 5/14/2012
saveme.com WIPO D2012-0498 5/31/2012
etatil.com WIPO domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew 6/23/2012
mamamayi.com NAF FA1205001445335 7/2/2012
sha.com WIPO D2012-0997 7/19/2012
mindo.com WIPO D2012-1273 7/26/2012
wallstreet.com WIPO D2012-1193 9/12/2012
womantowomanhealthcenter.com WIPO D2012-1555 9/22/2012
metatrader.com WIPO D2012-1475 10/5/2012
takeout.com WIPO D2012-1668 10/18/2012
gtms.com NAF FA1210001465897 11/19/2012
petexpress.com NAF FA1211001470056 1/2/2013
coldfront.com NAF domain first 1/17/2013
eyemagine.com WIPO domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew; plan "B" 2/14/2013
swash.com WIPO D2012-2179 2/22/2013
joopa.com NAF FA1302001483682 3/27/2013
opulence.com NAF domain first 4/2/2013
avayo.net NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; UDRP history 4/19/2013
hivinnocencegroupproject.com and other NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; misrepresentation 5/6/2013
ronpaul.org WIPO harassment 5/11/2013
ishades.com WIPO domain first; bad faith - no evidence; misrepresentation 5/14/2013
digilove.com WIPO domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; Plan "B"; misrepresentation 6/4/2013
klipz.com NAF domain first; bad faith - no evidence 7/17/2013

The ‘Reasons’ column is an attempt to identify and categorize the various circumstances cited by panels in support of a finding of RDNH.

Explanation of Reasons:


Bad Faith – No Evidence – the complaint provides no evidence of the respondent’s bad faith

Deception – deceptive behavior in complainant’s prior dealings with respondent

Delay - a long delay in bringing the complaint raises questions about whether complainant believes it has rights to the domain

Domain First – the registration of the domain predates trademark rights of the Complainant

Harassment - the primary motive of complainant appears to be to harass the respondent

Legitimate Interest – Complainant Knew – Complainant should have been aware that the respondent had a legitimate interest in the disputed domain

Misrepresentation – a misrepresentation to the panel, usually the omission of material information in violation of Complainant’s representation that the complaint is complete and accurate.

Plan “B” – the complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative acquisition strategy after commercial negotiations failed

Prior Court Case - Complaint brought to further burden respondent despite the matter already being the subject of a court case

TM – not valid – complainant did not have enforceable trademark rights

UDRP history – complainant has a history of filing unsuccessful UDRP complaints


Source: RDNH.COM




Reverse Domain Hijackers Scarlett Letter List. Updated!!

Afternoon Folks!!

Another great day for domainers!

Hey Morons, it's called capitalism! If you want something you PAY for it you don't try and abuse the systems so you can STEAL it. So now you have to live with the consequences of you being labled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker" forever.

Aptus Tech LLC and Max Moskowitz of Ostrolenk Faber LLP.  Live with it!! Hope you are PROUD! You are now case #43 below.

I will repost the following post each and every time there is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Decision. The best thing domain owners can do is Tweet, Like and/or Share. So just don't sit there! You CAN do something to circulate these offenders. So do it! That's REAL SEO!

Want to stop RDNH and get the $$$ instead of a NAF or WIPO action? THIS is the way to start. Someday there WILL be a legal penalty but until then there IS a social penalty if YOU CHOOSE. And believe me, the social penalty is MUCH more severe than a fine that can be easily absorbed and forgotten about. This is PERMANENT! THEY have to live with the social consequences of their actions. The best thing you can do is Tweet, Like and/or Share instead of throwing your hands up in the air and doing NOTHING! Doing nothing is what these little pricks count on! Let them know! I can only do so much and I need your help to DEFEAT this practice.

Aptus Tech LLC represented by Max Moskowitz, of Ostrolenk Faber LLP, GUILTY! RDNH of KLIPZ.com

Morning Folks!!

There really is a penalty for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and it is far more severe than anything monetary. I have been defending my domains from predators and would-be Domain Name Hijackers for over 14 years. When the Saveme.com case (Start at bottom of link page) came to me as a GIFT about 16 months ago I RELISHED my opportunity to change things. It was such a slam dunk that I was going to make this case an example for others and a warning of the SEVERE CONSEQUENCES that come with it. I may lose a domain, but a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER loses their entire reputation and it can't be repaired.

When I was a kid my parents and my teachers would scare me to be good as they would tell me if I was bad it would be on my "Permanent Record". Well when you commit a crime, it is on your permanent record. Misbehaving in school? Not so much.

So I have used the SaveMe.com case as well as others like Procter and Gamble to illustrate just how bad a decision trying to STEAL somebody else's domain really is. And so I did. I PROMISED to make Márcio Mello Chaves FAMOUS!! Promise kept baby!!

Go to Google or go to Bing and search for Márcio Mello Chaves or Marcio Mello Chaves.

THAT is how SEO REALLY works!!!

RELEVANCY!! Be relevant and you will have no problem being searched. Marcio Mello Chavez is relevant to Ricksblog.com and more importantly to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. How does he EVER fix it?? It's a permanent record of FACT!

Search procter and gamble domains. You no longer get a list of domains they own.

So I believe the SOCIAL PENALTY far outweighs anything else. A $100k fine is nothing when you talk of a 7 figure domain and a multi-billion dollar company. A win could be viewed as a "Discount".  But when you have to deal with the SOCIAL FALLOUT, it is MUCH more SEVERE and I am proving it!

The Scarlett Letter of Domain Hijacking will follow those throughout their entire lifetimes and beyond. Here are MY POSTS about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and those involved. The NEXT guy DESERVES what he gets because he has been warned and I am going to change their futures more than they can change their futures.

So this July 4th I feel like this year has been the turning point in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). And yes, I like to write out in full Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as many times as I can to associate a name with the deed! My only obligation to a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker is to make them FAMOUS! They try to destroy MY BUSINESS or YOUR BUSINESS?? Then they MUST live with the PERMANENT consequences. Did they show you mercy? Well they are warned and they OWN their decisions.

Did the biggest Company Shake up in 100 YEARS at Procter and Gamble have something to do with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking? Don't discount the possibility! Somebody made the decision to SOIL their companies stellar name. In government it may be overlooked or you get promoted. In business, you get you ASS kicked to the curb with all involved! And deservedly so!

I have 18 years and many millions of dollars invested in my online business as well as many of you readers. So if some IDIOT thinks he can just STEAL our hard work by hiring some hotshot and thinking $15k is all the skin they have in the game, then they have to live with the fallout and that fallout can be severe and  life changing. That's what BOTH the attorney and the client get from now on because attorney's know better at this point in time. So the job of the attorney is not be part of a hijacking and to AID and ABET. It is to educate their client or FIRE their client. 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 AID and ABET. And 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. You have been hired as a contract hit man 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. The MOMENT you go along with that, you are just as guilty because YOU KNOW what you are doing. It is premeditated. You are just as guilty aren't you my attorney??

Wrong minded? ok. But THAT is EXACTLY the way I see the roles and THAT is the passion I will write with every single time. Remember we are not talking about an honest difference of opinion where you need a ruing. We are talking when that ruling comes in that STATES that you have ABUSED the process. For that Mr. Attorney, YOU will be held accountable. Your choice? Tell your client the FACTS or FIRE your client. It may be the most important decision you ever make in life. And I get to write about YOU and mention NAMES whenever I feel like.

Molly Megee Hankins and Heitor Chavez are examples of what I am talking about as they represented Reverse Domain Name Hijackers and knew better! I will add more to the list as I look through the decisions to see which lawyers abused the process. 

I am going to stop this practice in it's tracks! If you are a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER or are found GUILTY of ABUSING the process, then You and your attorney will be known far and wide and throughout the world and it will follow you folks like a shadow on sunny days AND cloudy days and even in the dark!

Then you have the KING of all. Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL who represented Procter and Gamble. Have THEY been fired? Let me give them a second mention Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. I would assume these are top notch folks. HOW could they ALLOW their client to walk into this? I guess it would  take real balls to fire P&G. They might lose the account? Wonder if they were fired?

So if you are being unfairly threatened about your domain name, just point them here. It is FREE and EFFECTIVE because it is all based on FACT and PASSION! Give them a little window into how things may unfold because when YOU WIN and they get found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, I am going to write about them right here and make them famous too!

And what can you do? Circulate this post. Retweet it. Like it. Comment on Linkedin. Circulate it. THAT is a very small effort to help protect your livelihood and your assets that costs nothing and helps put these folks on notice. THAT is how to help STOP Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Rick Schwartz

Here is the current list I have of RDNH cases with our newest inductee. This list that the NEXT SCHMUCK gets to join and LIVE WITH!

So from now on we must ROAST these Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH). Ah you say but Rick what have you been doing if you are not already roasting them? Well there are some innovative ways we will begin to get the attention of these companies. But we will leave that for another day because this CONTENT is right here and not going away anytime soon.

Harsh? You bet!! These folks join Procter and Gamble and any others. But P&G BOUGHT the domain name later on.

Try to hijack a domain name and you will be shamed publicly because public opinion is the way to stop bad behavior when the laws out there are not adequate enough to do the job. Each of these companies will receive an increasingly HARSHER post from me because they are not ignorant of what they are doing. In almost every case they KNEW what they were doing and their INTENT was to STEAL using a governing body as their pawns!

The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies and individuals as well as the attorney's that KNOWINGLY aid and abet because they KNOW BETTER. They are all now BRANDED in the most despicable way and so all the $$$ they spent to familiarize us with their products just got a mighty damaging blow.

Well there have been more findings of Reverse Domain Hijacking in the last 12 months that any preceding 12 month period. So the cat is out of the bag and they can no longer fool panels into being their unknowing accomplice.

So when I get threats, THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN LOOK FORWARD TO

I have 43 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129 or more. 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. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!

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. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call "Capitalism" and NEGOTIATE!!

Otherwise you get to be labeled what "I" want to label you as and you will be tagged with that DESERVED recognition each and every time a new client does a search to find the good, the bad and the ugly. Want to know which group "Fuckers" will end up in?

And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedious job of making REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING a CRIMINAL offense as we move forward.

If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.

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

But in even a bigger case, Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

Case #1 is our Friend Scott Day of Digimedia who won a $100k+ judgment againstGOFORIT 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 The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America 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 under USD 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."

Case #35 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 it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Abhyanker of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA.  “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. "The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”

Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. "Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better." Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and "counsel should have known better"

Case #38 Opulence.com Complainant is Horizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA.
Horizon Publishing, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is the latest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER by the governing body.

Case #39 Avayo.net Complainant is Avaya Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph Englander of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Florida, USA. “The Respondent correctly notes that the Complainant has previously filed domain name cases, and lost in two of such cases when it brought proceedings against legitimate businesses such as the Respondent.  See Avaya Inc. v. Sudhir Sazena, FA 1229266 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2008); and Avaya Inc. v. Moayyad Hamad, FA 1456063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2012). ” “Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to hijack Respondent’s domain name” Avaya Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker 

Case #40 hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com. Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names.

Case #41 Complainant is the Honorable Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, Texas, United States of America, represented by LeClairRyan, United States of America." Ron Paul has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. I certainly invite the congressman and/or the domain owner to comment here or even write a guest blog post. 

Case #42  The Complainant is Ryan P. Boggs of Los Angeles, California, United States of America, represented by Molly Megee Hankins, ESQ., United States of America. The three person panel found (pdf) that Boggs “engaged in duplicitous dealings with the Respondent in relation to potential purchase of the disputed domain name”. "Complaint makes express and implied assertions that are false. These false assertions might have misled the Panel had not the Respondent provided the evidence, readily available to the Complainant, that refutes these assertions. Furthermore, it is simply not fair to require the Respondent to provide evidence establishing that the Complainant’s case is without basis when the Complainant must have, or at least should have, known this fact. The egregiousness of these deficiencies of the Complaint is compounded by the fact that the Complainant was represented by counsel. "

Case #43 Complainant is Aptus Tech LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Max Moskowitz, of Ostrolenk Faber LLP, New York, USA.  Respondent is Name Administration Inc. (BVI)(“Respondent”), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA

Aptus Tech LLC represented by Max Moskowitz, of Ostrolenk Faber LLP, has now been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. (RDNH)

"In this case, the evidence indicates that Complainant clearly knew that the disputed domain name was registered many years before it could establish rights in the KLIPZ mark and, thus, that it would not be able to establish that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, which is one of elements one must establish in order to prevail under the Policy."

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

 

There IS a HUGE Penalty for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking!! More Severe than Dollars!

Morning Folks!!

There really is a penalty for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and it is far more severe than anything monetary. I have been defending my domains from predators and would-be Domain Name Hijackers for over 14 years. When the Saveme.com case (Start at bottom of link page) came to me as a GIFT about 16 months ago I RELISHED my opportunity to change things. It was such a slam dunk that I was going to make this case an example for others and a warning of the SEVERE CONSEQUENCES that come with it. I may lose a domain, but a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER loses their entire reputation and it can't be repaired.

When I was a kid my parents and my teachers would scare me to be good as they would tell me if I was bad it would be on my "Permanent Record". Well when you commit a crime, it is on your permanent record. Misbehaving in school? Not so much.

So I have used the SaveMe.com case as well as others like Procter and Gamble to illustrate just how bad a decision trying to STEAL somebody else's domain really is. And so I did. I PROMISED to make Márcio Mello Chaves FAMOUS!! Promise kept baby!!

Go to Google or go to Bing and search for Márcio Mello Chaves or Marcio Mello Chaves.

THAT is how SEO REALLY works!!!

RELEVANCY!! Be relevant and you will have no problem being searched. Marcio Mello Chavez is relevant to Ricksblog.com and more importantly to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. How does he EVER fix it?? It's a permanent record of FACT!

Search procter and gamble domains. You no longer get a list of domains they own.

So I believe the SOCIAL PENALTY far outweighs anything else. A $100k fine is nothing when you talk of a 7 figure domain and a multi-billion dollar company. A win could be viewed as a "Discount".  But when you have to deal with the SOCIAL FALLOUT, it is MUCH more SEVERE and I am proving it!

The Scarlett Letter of Domain Hijacking will follow those throughout their entire lifetimes and beyond. Here are MY POSTS about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and those involved. The NEXT guy DESERVES what he gets because he has been warned and I am going to change their futures more than they can change their futures.

So this July 4th I feel like this year has been the turning point in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). And yes, I like to write out in full Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as many times as I can to associate a name with the deed! My only obligation to a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker is to make them FAMOUS! They try to destroy MY BUSINESS or YOUR BUSINESS?? Then they MUST live with the PERMANENT consequences. Did they show you mercy? Well they are warned and they OWN their decisions.

Did the biggest Company Shake up in 100 YEARS at Procter and Gamble have something to do with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking? Don't discount the possibility! Somebody made the decision to SOIL their companies stellar name. In government it may be overlooked or you get promoted. In business, you get you ASS kicked to the curb with all involved! And deservedly so!

I have 18 years and many millions of dollars invested in my online business as well as many of you readers. So if some IDIOT thinks he can just STEAL our hard work by hiring some hotshot and thinking $15k is all the skin they have in the game, then they have to live with the fallout and that fallout can be severe and  life changing. That's what BOTH the attorney and the client get from now on because attorney's know better at this point in time. So the job of the attorney is not be part of a hijacking and to AID and ABET. It is to educate their client or FIRE their client. 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 AID and ABET. And 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. You have been hired as a contract hit man 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. The MOMENT you go along with that, you are just as guilty because YOU KNOW what you are doing. It is premeditated. You are just as guilty aren't you my attorney??

Wrong minded? ok. But THAT is EXACTLY the way I see the roles and THAT is the passion I will write with every single time. Remember we are not talking about an honest difference of opinion where you need a ruing. We are talking when that ruling comes in that STATES that you have ABUSED the process. For that Mr. Attorney, YOU will be held accountable. Your choice? Tell your client the FACTS or FIRE your client. It may be the most important decision you ever make in life. And I get to write about YOU and mention NAMES whenever I feel like.

Molly Megee Hankins and Heitor Chavez are examples of what I am talking about as they represented Reverse Domain Name Hijackers and knew better! I will add more to the list as I look through the decisions to see which lawyers abused the process. 

I am going to stop this practice in it's tracks! If you are a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER or are found GUILTY of ABUSING the process, then You and your attorney will be known far and wide and throughout the world and it will follow you folks like a shadow on sunny days AND cloudy days and even in the dark!

Then you have the KING of all. Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL who represented Procter and Gamble. Have THEY been fired? Let me give them a second mention Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. I would assume these are top notch folks. HOW could they ALLOW their client to walk into this? I guess it would  take real balls to fire P&G. They might lose the account? Wonder if they were fired?

So if you are being unfairly threatened about your domain name, just point them here. It is FREE and EFFECTIVE because it is all based on FACT and PASSION! Give them a little window into how things may unfold because when YOU WIN and they get found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, I am going to write about them right here and make them famous too!

And what can you do? Circulate this post. Retweet it. Like it. Comment on Linkedin. Circulate it. THAT is a very small effort to help protect your livelihood and your assets that costs nothing and helps put these folks on notice. THAT is how to help STOP Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Rick Schwartz

 

 

And just for the sake of republishing for this post and July 4th. Here is the current list I have of RDNH cases. This list that the NEXT SCHMUCK gets to join and LIVE WITH!

So from now on we must ROAST these Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH). Ah you say but Rick what have you been doing if you are not already roasting them? Well there are some innovative ways we will begin to get the attention of these companies. But we will leave that for another day because this CONTENT is right here and not going away anytime soon.

Harsh? You bet!! These folks join Procter and Gamble and any others. But P&G BOUGHT the domain name later on.

Try to hijack a domain name and you will be shamed publicly because public opinion is the way to stop bad behavior when the laws out there are not adequate enough to do the job. Each of these companies will receive an increasingly HARSHER post from me because they are not ignorant of what they are doing. In almost every case they KNEW what they were doing and their INTENT was to STEAL using a governing body as their pawns!

The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies and individuals as well as the attorney's that KNOWINGLY aid and abet because they KNOW BETTER. They are all now BRANDED in the most despicable way and so all the $$$ they spent to familiarize us with their products just got a mighty damaging blow.

Well there have been more findings of Reverse Domain Hijacking in the last 12 months that any preceding 12 month period. So the cat is out of the bag and they can no longer fool panels into being their unknowing accomplice.

So when I get threats, THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN LOOK FORWARD TO

I have 41 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129. 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. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!

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. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call "Capitalism" and NEGOTIATE!!

Otherwise you get to be labeled what "I" want to label you as and you will be tagged with that DESERVED recognition each and every time a new client does a search to find the good, the bad and the ugly. Want to know which group "Fuckers" will end up in.

And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedious job of making REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING a CRIMINAL offense as we move forward.

If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.

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

But in even a bigger case, Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

Case #1 is our Friend Scott Day of Digimedia who won a $100k+ judgment againstGOFORIT 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 The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America 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 under USD 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."

Case #35 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 it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Abhyanker of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA.  “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. "The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”

Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. "Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better." Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and "counsel should have known better"

Case #38 Opulence.com Complainant is Horizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA.
Horizon Publishing, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is the latest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER by the governing body.

Case #39 Avayo.net Complainant is Avaya Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph Englander of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Florida, USA. “The Respondent correctly notes that the Complainant has previously filed domain name cases, and lost in two of such cases when it brought proceedings against legitimate businesses such as the Respondent.  See Avaya Inc. v. Sudhir Sazena, FA 1229266 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2008); and Avaya Inc. v. Moayyad Hamad, FA 1456063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2012). ” “Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to hijack Respondent’s domain name” Avaya Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker 

Case #40 hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com. Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names.

Case #41 Complainant is the Honorable Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, Texas, United States of America, represented by LeClairRyan, United States of America." Ron Paul has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. I certainly invite the congressman and/or the domain owner to comment here or even write a guest blog post. 

Case #42  The Complainant is Ryan P. Boggs of Los Angeles, California, United States of America, represented by Molly Megee Hankins, ESQ., United States of America. The three person panel found (pdf) that Boggs “engaged in duplicitous dealings with the Respondent in relation to potential purchase of the disputed domain name”. "Complaint makes express and implied assertions that are false. These false assertions might have misled the Panel had not the Respondent provided the evidence, readily available to the Complainant, that refutes these assertions. Furthermore, it is simply not fair to require the Respondent to provide evidence establishing that the Complainant’s case is without basis when the Complainant must have, or at least should have, known this fact. The egregiousness of these deficiencies of the Complaint is compounded by the fact that the Complainant was represented by counsel. "

 

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

 


 

 

 

Ryan P. Boggs of Digi10ve.com found GUILTY of RDNH

Morning Folks!!

When will these folks learn? 2 more people with "Scarlett Letters" hanging around their neck forever!

DomainNameWire.com is reporting another  case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. This one with a twist.

According to their story:

"Ryan P. Boggs of the site Digi10ve.com filed a seven-sentence UDRP pleading with WIPO to try to wrestle the domain name Digilove.com away from Frank Schilling. The case was filed with the help of attorney Molly Megee Hankins, whose LinkedIn profile shows that she’s co-founder of Digi10ve.com" (Not exactly clean hands)

Hankins originally inquired about buying the domain in 2010. Boggs then followed up, offering to buy the domain “at a reasonable marked up price”. According to the response, Boggs offered $16,000 for the domain, which Name Administration accepted. Boggs withdrew the offer, explaining that the offer had been made to see what Name Administration would have accepted for the domain. He then filed a trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for “Digilove”. The three person panel found (pdf) that Boggs “engaged in duplicitous dealings with the Respondent in relation to potential purchase of the disputed domain name”. 

So from now on we must ROAST these Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH). Ah you say but Rick what have you been doing if you are not already roasting them? Well there are some innovative ways we will begin to get the attention of these companies. But we will leave that for another day because this CONTENT is right here and not going away anytime soon.

Harsh? You bet!! These folks join Procter and Gamble and any others. But P&G BOUGHT the domain name later on.

Try to hijack a domain name and you will be shamed publicly because public opinion is the way to stop bad behavior when the laws out there are not adequate enough to do the job. Each of these companies will receive an increasingly HARSHER post from me because they are not ignorant of what they are doing. In almost every case they KNEW what they were doing and their INTENT was to STEAL using a governing body as their pawns!

The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies and individuals as well as the attorney's that KNOWINGLY aid and abet because they KNOW BETTER. They are all now BRANDED in the most despicable way and so all the $$$ they spent to familiarize us with their products just got a mighty damaging blow.

Well there have been more findings of Reverse Domain Hijacking in the last 12 months that any preceding 12 month period. So the cat is out of the bag and they can no longer fool panels into being their unknowing accomplice.

So when I get threats, THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN LOOK FORWARD TO

I have 41 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129. 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. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!

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. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call "Capitalism" and NEGOTIATE!!

Otherwise you get to be labeled what "I" want to label you as and you will be tagged with that DESERVED recognition each and every time a new client does a search to find the good, the bad and the ugly. Want to know which group "Fuckers" will end up in.

And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedious job of making REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING a CRIMINAL offense as we move forward.

If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.

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

But in even a bigger case, Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

Case #1 is our Friend Scott Day of Digimedia who won a $100k+ judgment againstGOFORIT 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 The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America 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 under USD 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."

Case #35 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 it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Abhyanker of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA.  “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. "The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”

Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. "Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better." Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and "counsel should have known better"

Case #38 Opulence.com Complainant is Horizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA.
Horizon Publishing, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is the latest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER by the governing body.

Case #39 Avayo.net Complainant is Avaya Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph Englander of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Florida, USA. “The Respondent correctly notes that the Complainant has previously filed domain name cases, and lost in two of such cases when it brought proceedings against legitimate businesses such as the Respondent.  See Avaya Inc. v. Sudhir Sazena, FA 1229266 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2008); and Avaya Inc. v. Moayyad Hamad, FA 1456063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2012). ” “Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to hijack Respondent’s domain name” Avaya Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker 

Case #40 hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com. Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names.

Case #41 Complainant is the Honorable Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, Texas, United States of America, represented by LeClairRyan, United States of America." Ron Paul has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. I certainly invite the congressman and/or the domain owner to comment here or even write a guest blog post. 

Case #42  The Complainant is Ryan P. Boggs of Los Angeles, California, United States of America, represented by Molly Megee Hankins, ESQ., United States of America. The three person panel found (pdf) that Boggs “engaged in duplicitous dealings with the Respondent in relation to potential purchase of the disputed domain name”. "Complaint makes express and implied assertions that are false. These false assertions might have misled the Panel had not the Respondent provided the evidence, readily available to the Complainant, that refutes these assertions. Furthermore, it is simply not fair to require the Respondent to provide evidence establishing that the Complainant’s case is without basis when the Complainant must have, or at least should have, known this fact. The egregiousness of these deficiencies of the Complaint is compounded by the fact that the Complainant was represented by counsel. "

 

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