Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. GUILTY, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)

Morning Folks!!


As reported by TheDomains.com last Friday......


Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was just found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com by a one member National Arbitration Forum UDRP decision.


So Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. joins the other GUILTY PARTIES below. Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA should have known better. So as time goes on BOTH the company and the attorney are tagged in this. I BELIEVE that by virtue of these decisions they are CO-CONSPIRATORS. They BOTH engaged in activity that was deemed as hijacking.


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!! They join Procter and Gamble and any others. But P&G later 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!


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 39 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.


The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies. They are 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.


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.


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



Avaya Inc. Found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking!! ROAST!!!

Morning Folks!!

And we can ask this. If Donald Trump and this company, Avaya Inc with 17,500 employees, tried to HIJACK one of his properties, what do you think the response would be?? I think I am FAR from being harsh. I think he would take this company to task publicly and shame them and each of those 17,500 people that are standing by as this was allowed to happen and now where are the repercussions?? Who made the decisions to HIJACK a 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.

Avaya Inc. a company with 17,500 employees worldwide, is the latest company to be found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Another MORONIC internal decision soiling the reputation of a company by resorting to an attempted theft instead of the negotiating table. These tactics are going to do LONG TERM DAMAGE to companies engaging in it. Avaya Inc joins a growing list of companies that resort to THEFT when they see something they want. A DISGUSTING practice that now all 17,500 employees of Avaya Inc can hold up as a measure of their CHARACTER!

Harsh? You bet!! But if I were one of those 17,500 employees I would want to know what MORON or MORONS at Avaya Inc sold CLASS down the river??

They join Procter and Gamble and any others. But P&G later BOUGHT the domain name.

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!

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 39 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.

The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies. They are 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.

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 underUSD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.

In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'

Case #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds 'Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.'

Case #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. 'The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'

Case #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”

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

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

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

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

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

Case #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.

The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name.It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP.It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.

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

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

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 lastest 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 Coming Soon FUCKERS!!!

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

How to Prevent a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Rick Style! Thieves take Note!

Morning Folks!!

It' no secret that when it comes to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) proactive is an understatement to describe my efforts. I am on a personal and professional mission to SHAME these folks in such a manner that folks will figure it out before I have to publicly tar and feather them. Not your style, then get used to bending over.

I get this email over the weekend with a THREAT.

I don't take kindly to THIEVES.

My company **************, LLC. owns the trademark for ************(United States Patent and Trademark Office Serial Number ***********). We would like to inquire about a friendly transfer before we pursue a legal course.

My style cuts thru the bullshit of life.


Read this before you make a FOOL of yourself in public and I OWN your reputation.



So in a nice way, FUCK OFF THIEF!!

You can read plenty more. Like Procter and Gamble. So be ready John.

Your new Trademark is worth SHIT when it comes to my ******.com

Ok John. Now if I EVER hear form you again I will write you up and everyone you know will know you are a lowlife scumbucket thief.

Harsher letter to follow.

Howard, shove it up this guys ass. Let's go Federal and make John as famous as the schmuck from my saveme.com

Go type that in John.

See how this guy went down.


Fuck you asshole!

Go ahead use this as evidence when you try and REVERSE HIJACK a DOMAIN you have no rights to. I am going to make you famous! Everyone you know will know you are a THIEF!

Go LEARN!


You got 1 HOUR to apologize or you will be on my blog TOMORROW!

Want to play FUCKER??

Lets do it!!


I get a response 9 minutes later.

Dear Rick,

I apologize and I did not mean to offend you in any way. I was misinformed about the coverage of our trademark, and again I am sorry for my first email. If there is anything else I can do please let me know.

Best,

John

Now I am glad John learned his lesson before I had to do what I do. Domainers need to grow some BALLS and stop being AFRAID of THIEVES and treat THIEVES like a THIEF should be treated.

This will become more and more common place and Howard and I have decided to take the next THIEF to Federal Court and we are going to have even stronger cases and more costly cases to point to. The next CLOWN that even comes NEAR a domain he has no rights to is going to get a lawsuit on their desk and they are going to be made an example of.

With each passing day, there is less an less excuses to engage in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. So the Law firms engaged in this will be soiled just as much and maybe even more than the would-be thief. They know better. They KNOW what they are doing and so I will be opening a special section just spotlighting the law firms engaged in this practice. They KNOW better! That makes them an ACCOMPLICE!

Rick Schwartz

Horizon Publishing the latest F*CKER to be Labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER.

Afternoon Folks!!


You all know this was coming. I had to go out and buy some more tar and feathers for these folks that many have labeled as THIEVES and I now call FUCKERS! CYBERFUCKERS from now on. For those DOMAINERS that have to go out of their way to tell me that they are sick of these posts, you ain't much better than the cyberfuckers themselves in my book. So get out of way!


TheDomains.com reported this week that Horizon Publishing, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is the latest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER!


Complainant is Horizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA and the domain name is Opulence.com


I guess these 'CyberFuckers' did not read my posts. Especially this one and the reason these would-be THIEVES are now called FUCKERS in my book and TODAY we have the new term of CyberFuckers.com. A group that will circulate to every corner of the Internet within time.


Now I am sure all you THIEVES don't like that. But I don't know a SOUL on the planet that likes a thief, so I am UPGRADING you to fuckers! Why? READ WHY HERE!


Both client and attorney are GUILTY!


So Mr. Attorney, you know you had no legal or moral leg to stand on and instead of honoring your oath, you get enlisted as a CO-HIJACKER to STEAL! It is one thing to defend a guilty party it is an entirely different thing when AS AN ATTORNEY YOU ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in what will be a CRIME someday and is attempted THEFT today!


“In bringing its Complaint and as discussed above, Complainant overtly disregards facts and law which should have been well known to Complainant prior to filing; namely that the at-issue domain name domain name was registered about six years prior to Complainant having any possible trademark interest in the OPULENCE mark(s),and that it is black letter in all but very specific circumstances a UDRP complaint must fail when the complainant lacks trademark rights at the time the at-issue domain name was first registered.


Since Complainant, through Counsel, knew, or should have known, that its Complaint should, and likely would, fail but nevertheless choose to file the Complaint anyway, the only purpose for doing so must have been in the hope that the reviewing panel would overlook Complainant’s lack of rights at the time the domain name was registered and erroneously rule in Complainant’s favor. Alternatively, Complainant may have filed its losing Complaint to intimidate an unwitting domain name’s owner into making a favorable deal with Complainant, rather than risk an unfavorable decision where he or she would get nothing. Filing a complaint for either of these purposes represents an abuse of the UDRP process.”


I have 38 such cases so far 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.


The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies. They are 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.


And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedius 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 against GOFORIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC who IS a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Case #12 TrailBlazer.com 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 underUSD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.


In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'


Case #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds 'Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.'


Case #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. 'The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'


Case #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.


D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:


“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”


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


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


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


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


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


Case #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.


The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name. It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP. It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.


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


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


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 lastest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER by the governing body.


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


Rick’s Magnificent Vaccine. How to REVERSE, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Morning Folks!!

This post below is from 2013 but with all talk of SOB's lately and SOB.com pointed here, indulge me while I make an update.

First if you are here about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking the mother of all hijacking came in 2017 in the form of MY domain name Queen.com. Some SCHMUCK in Denmark, Frands Jepsen, did not heed my warnings. Now he is a convicted DOMAIN HIJACKER! Read the entire story right here 

So that brings me to 9/26/2017. Thank you President Trump for increasing the value of SOB.com! Now it's for sale. We will trade the domain name for bitcoin. You can inquire as to how many by email.

Now back to my April 2013 post:

Some folks don't like my style. Sure, many domainers don't care about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking because they have no domains anyone would want to steal. So for them, ScrewYou.com. You protect your assets and family the way you see fit and I'll do the same. Except I live in the world of reality and in reality there are still corporate bullies roaming around taking things they are not entitled to legally or morally.

I have been defending these suits as long as they have been in the business of filing them. And it is a business. A BIG business. But it is no longer going to pay off and the risk is going to more than any rational company should be willing to take.

Shortly after the LadyGodiva.com suit between Campbell's and yours truly and when I had first met Howard, I had another interesting conflict with another very large company. In those days, domain owners just rolled over. Not me. I was going to be the mouse that roared because the Internet as a medium was meant to even the playing field and these SOB's were going to have to deal with the new reality.

I do not look for or pick these fights, but I relish them when they come. I relish them because it is these wins that protect my other domains and yours too! This has been a 15 year battle and I have INVESTED tens of thousands of dollars or more protecting my self and then using these cases to INSURE my other domains by defeating corporate bullies trying to take

LadyGodiva.com
GoofOff.com
TSTV.com
And others

and Reverse Domain Name Hijackers.

SaveMe.com

And thankfully 38 decisions on Reverse Domain Name Hijacking by other parties that I chronicle right here, some 130 case at RDNH.com and then a special post for Procter and Gamble that thought they were above all this and could lie to the presiding panel.

DOWN GOES FRAZIER! (look it up, if you don't know what it means)


Frazier

Now if folks don't learn from this and don't realize if they slap down Procter and Gamble that they will swat you down in the same manner when you do the same thing, they are just schmucks that will get what they deserve. So if that is YOU that I sent here to read this, then PLEASE don't be that schmuck.

But if you ARE that schmuck............think twice. If YOU are convicted of RDNH, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, No reputation management software will erase the ink. You will be stuck with the consequences of your actions. In time that may be equal to a prison record. I will OWN your reputation and I don't want to. But YOU are calling the shots because YOU are the PREDATOR. So if this rattlesnake bites, just make sure you blame yourself and not me.

Amazingly, not one of these fuckers have ever contacted me after the decision to say congratulations. To say they were sorry. To start a constructive dialogue. To ask if we could work something out. To make a bonafide business offer. These would-be thieves would 'steal' but when they got CAUGHT, never offered to pay. Low life scum comes to mind to describe that behavior.

And when we talk about Procter and Gamble, a domain dispute I was not involved in, famed domain attorney John Berryhill had this to say abot them as reported in DNJournal.com

'The entire premise of the UDRP proceeding was stunningly dishonest. They want the domain name for something else entirely, and concocted an utter work of fiction in order to attempt to steal it.'

According to DNJournal:

Berryhill lays out the facts that prove his points - P&G wasn't interested in the domain because of a failed product they once marketed, they wanted it for a new offering. Unfortunately they didn't want to pay a fair and reasonable market price for it, for some bizarre reason, believing it would be smarter to try to steal it. Next time you look up the phrase 'penny wise and pound foolish' on the web, odds are you will see the P&G logo illustrating the concept.

It was important enough to lie or steal or attempting both but not important enough to pay for??
FUCKERS! What do you want to call them? The domain in question 'Swash.com' Marchex was willing to let go for $30,000. Not exactly a shake down but an incredibly reasonable price. A domain I will state right here publicly has a high mid-6 figure value in my professional and personal opinion and I would have expected a 7 figure asking price. So $30,000???? What was the COST of the The cost of the action P&G filed? Now it cost them a lot more because this is ON THE RECORD!

'Well, it's not PROFESSIONAL to call them names.' Say some. Fine when PROFESSIONALS stop LYING and trying to STEAL, I'll stop calling them FUCKERS! How's that?

Am I harsh? Hell no! When companies and other folks try to steal from me and others, it would not surprise me if we were not the only folks they did it to. Just a common sense wild guess that I am sure has no merit at all. Right?

And believe me, as harsh as I have been, wait til you see what happens to the next FUCKER that tries and overstep their legal, moral and every other rights in hopes they can get something on the cheap that they have no RIGHTS to. They put their entire company and everyone working there in jeopardy when they mess with me. When they mess with you too. When they try and steal a domain.

Look, sometimes there is a legitimate dispute. The law is seldom black and white. So I respect when there is a true point of contention and then let the chips fall where they may and no hard feelings either way. However, when common sense is thrown by the wayside and folks make things up, then we have a serious mess and I am gonna milk that baby so the next FUCKER learns before they step in the ring.

They will read this. I will point them to it. Their decision whether they want to GAMBLE not only their company's reputation but their personal reputation as well and that of the attorney handling the case. Ya know, the ones that 'Should know better'. Do they really want to do that with all this EVIDENCE for them to see?

I don't sell mercy. I give a FREE WARNING of what might happen if you decide to illegally TRESPASS.

TRESPASSERS BEWARE. I will TYPE ON SIGHT!

Have a GREAT Day!

Rick Schwartz

First Time Ever Released! My Entire 1996 Domain Portfolio

Morning Folks!!


I am a bit of a pack rate. An electronic pack rat for sure!! My electronic files go back to 1996. Once and a while I will open a file and take a look back. Today I opened a November 1996 file that contained my entire portfolio after 10 months collecting domain names. With the exception of about 59 adult domains, this was the actual list from that time.


My first year. NO PPC. No real way to monetize a domain at that time, The adult industry was just starting to sprout. Mainstream wasn't even called mainstream yet nor was much there. But even back then my portfolio was always heavily weighted to mainstream, Main Street type domain names, that I always believed would have much greater value in the future.


Of these a couple never made it to my account. I let 1 or 2 expire as I learned about trademarks. I sold about 5 for a total of about $800,000. 1 or 2 may have even been hijacked. The rest I still own.


Probably Gaysex.com is the one on the list that has generated the most revenue over the years. That $100 slot machine play has spit out well into the 6 figures over the years and still spitin'.


Here are 168 of 227 domains I owned in November 1996. Some good, some not. But there was no road-map back then. Most of them were not even hooked up yet or were just in the process of getting activated. See the ISP's wanted $39.95 PER DOMAIN to hook up back then. So I had to find a guy capable of hooking them all up for much less. So I finally found a guy that would charge me $250/month for all the domains and that was really the start of things and figuring out which domains had value and which did not. I just try to follow human nature the best I could. And still do.































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































ACCENTFURNITURE.COM
ANTIQUE FURNITURE.COM
ANTIQUECLOCKS.COM
ANTIQUEJEWELERS.COM
ANTIQUEPALACE.COM
ANTIQUESWANTED.COM
ART-ANTIQUES.COM
ASS.NET
ATHENSHOTELS.COM
AUCTIONSONLINE.COM
BESTIDEA.COM
BESTMAN.COM
BESTODDS.COM
BIGGESTDISCOUNT
BINGONIGHT.COM
BINGORAMA.COM
BIRTHDAYPARTY.COM
BOOKIEONLINE.COM
CASINOGAMBLERS.COM
CASINOGAMBLING.COM
CASINOGAMBLING.NET
CASINONLINE.COM
CASINOPALACE.COM
CASUALFURNITURE.COM
CHEAPDATE.COM
CHEAPESTAIRFARES.COM
CHEAPESTFARES.COM
CHEAPESTPRICE.COM
CHEAPESTPRICES.COM
CHEAPLAND.COM
CHEAPTHRILL.COM
CHEATING.COM
CHRISTIANNET.COM
CYBERASS.COM
CYBERGAMBLER.COM
CYBERTRAMPS.COM
CYBERWHORE.COM
DAILYDOUBLE.COM
DATENOW.COM
DISCOUNTPRICE.COM
DISCOUNTPRICES.COM
DISCOUNTRESERVATIONS.COM
EBINGO.COM
EFURNITRUE.COM
EMOVIE.COM
EXOYICWOMEN.COM
EXTRACASH.COM
FLOWERDEPOT.COM
FLOWERLAND.COM
FURNITUREDISCOUNTERS.COM
FURNITUREDISCOUNTERS.COM
FURNITURELEASING.COM
FURNITURESALE.COM
FURNITURESHOWROOM.COM
FURNITUREWHOLESALE.COM
GAYSEX.COM
GETHOT.COM
GIRLS.NET
GIRLSWANTED.COM
GOLD-DIAMONDS.COM
GORGEOUSWOMEN.COM
GREATASS.COM
HANDICAPPER.COM
HIGHPROFIT.COM
HORNYWIVES.COM
IMPORTEDFURNITURE.COM
INDIANCASINO.COM
INETCASINO.COM
INTERNETBETTING.COM
INTERNETGAMBLING.COM
JACKPOTBINGO.COM
JACKPOTSLOTS.COM
JCHRIST.COM
JESUS LOVESYOU.COM
KEMP-POWELL.COM
KEMP2000.COM
JESUSNET.COM
KINKYSEX.NET
KISSASS.COM
LASVEGASGAMBLING.COM
LAWTIPS.COM
LIVEDATES.COM
LONDONHOTELS.COM
LONELYPEOPLE.COM
MAKEOUT.COM
MODELHOMES.COM
MRAMERICA.COM
MRUNIVERSE.COM
MSAMERICA.COM
ONLINECASINOS.COM
ORIENTALGIRLS.COM
OUTDOORFURNITURE.COM
PARTYPALACE.COM
PLACEABET.COM
POWELL-KEMP.COM
POWELL2000.COM
RICKSCHWARTZ.COM
ROLEXFORSALE.COM
ROMEHOTELS.COM
SAMSTOWNCASINO.COM
SAVEME.COM
SCREWYOU.COM
SEXGODDESS.COM
SEXYMODELS.COM
SINGLEPEOPLE.COM
SOFTWAREFORSALE.COM
STAMPSFORSALE.COM
STARVINGARTISTS.COM
STREETWALKER.COM
SYDNEYHOTELS.COM
TICKETSFORSALE.COM
TIGERGOLF.COM
TIMEISMONEY.COM
TIPLINE.COM
TIPSHEET.COM
TITTYBAR.COM
TOCHRIST.COM
TOJESUS.COM
TOKYOHOTELS.COM
USGIRLS.COM
VBANC.COM
VBANKS.COM
VDATES.COM
VIRTUALAMERICAN.COM
VIRTUALASS.COM
VIRTUALASSHOLE.COM
VIRTUALAUTODEALER.COM
VIRTUALAUTOLEASING.COM
VIRTUALBANC.COM
VIRTUALBEDROOM.COM
VIRTUALBODY.COM
VIRTUALBOYFRIEND.COM
VIRTUALCARDEALER.COM
VIRTUALCRAPS.COM
VIRTUALDATES.COM
VIRTUALDIET.COM
VIRTUALDOCTOR.COM
VIRTUALGIRLFRIEND.COM
VIRTUALGOLFPRO.COM
VIRTUALHOOKERS.COM
VIRTUALKENO.COM
VIRTUALLEASING.COM
VIRTUALMENTOR.COM
VIRTUALMUSEUEM.COM
VIRTUALNUDITY.COM
VIRTUALPLAYBOY.COM
VIRTUALPLAYGIRL.COM
VIRTUALPRIEST.COM
VIRTUALSECRETARY.COM
VIRTUALSHOWROOM.COM
VIRTUALSLUT.COM
VIRTUALSTRIPPER.COM
VIRTUALTEACHER.COM
VIRTUALWHORE.COM
VIRTUALWHOREHOUSE.COM
VISIONSEX.COM
VSECRETARY.COM
WAGERONLINE.COM
WEALTHONLINE.COM
WEBNETCASINO.COM
WEBSLUT.COM
WHOLESALEFURNITURE.COM
WHOLESALEJEWELERS.COM
WHOLESALEJEWELRY.COM
WHOLESALEWATCHES.COM
WIFESWAP.COM
WORKSMARTER.COM
WORLDCHAMP.COM

Have a GREAT Day!

Rick Schwartz



Mr. Edward Smith of California GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking!!

Afternoon Folks!!


TheDomains.com is reporting A three member UDRP panel has found Edward Smith of California guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in the attempt grab of the domain name Joopa.com


I have 36 such cases so far 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 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!!


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 against GOFORIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC who IS a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Case #12 TrailBlazer.com 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 underUSD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.


In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'


Case #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds 'Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.'


Case #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. 'The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'


Case #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.


D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:


“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”


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


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


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


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


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


Case #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.


The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name. It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP. It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.


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


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


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'


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 Hijackers Add Another Member to”Team Idiot”

Morning Folks!!


Here we go again! ANOTHER decision of 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking has just come down and this time we have to go down under.


The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au.


http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DAU2012-0033


I have 35 such cases so far and each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before tey attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to.


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 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!!


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 against GOFORIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC who IS a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Case #12 TrailBlazer.com 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 underUSD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.


In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'


Case #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds 'Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.'


Case #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. 'The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'


Case #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.


D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:


“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”


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


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


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


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


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


Case #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.


The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name. It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP. It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.


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


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


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.


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



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

Morning Folks!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most importantly Mr. Berkens points out one last thing:

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

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

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

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

Mcdonald
Bob McDonald. CEO since 2009

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

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

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

Regretfully,

Rick Schwartz

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

Afternoon Folks!!


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


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


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




7. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking




page 8




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


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




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



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


In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.





page 9




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


8. Decision


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






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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'


Case #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds 'Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.'


Case #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. 'The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'


Case #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.


D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:


“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”


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


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


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


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


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


Case #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.


The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name. It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP. It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.


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


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


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


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


Rick Schwartz