Hall of Shame. Never Let Reverse Domain Name Hijackers Forget. Warning to Others!!

Morning Folks!!


The way to inoculate ourselves against things like Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is letting them know ALL THE TIME that they have crossed a line. That while they were busy calling us cybersquatters, it has been nothing but a smoke screen to cover an attempted theft. Or perhaps a premeditated attempted theft. Either way the folks get to decide how to split the hair.


But today I made a decision. I decided to post those convicted of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking every month or so. Maybe every day. Whatever it takes to get the message out loud and clear.


I have 23 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.


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 Haggenstrasse 45, 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 the City 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'


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.


THOU SHALT NOT STEAL!


Rick Schwartz

-----



7 thoughts on “Hall of Shame. Never Let Reverse Domain Name Hijackers Forget. Warning to Others!!

  1. guy

    great work King!
    they doid the walk of shame, now they can rest in the hall of shame for all of eternity
    i like how the scum lawyers who ‘represented’ them are named too.
    they knew what they were trying

    Reply
  2. SF

    Very Good.
    Sounds like this could be perfect as a weekly column for Ron to post in DNJournal, just like the weekly sales lists.

    Reply
  3. Danny Welsh

    Nice find Uzoma!
    Did you look at the 10,000+ comments from REAL people, many of them customers of Nissan Motors around the world who are APPALLED the company has acted in such a greedy fashion?
    http://www.digest.com/people/page_1.shtml
    One that LEAPS out at me:
    “I can’t believe a company the size of Nissan Motors is risking its reputation with the American people for the sole reason that it wants to own a URL”
    and
    “I’m a bit put off by their strong-arm tactics in trying to get this website URL.”
    WOW!
    I never knew that. How many people find out EVERY day when they type-in Nissan.com that a respected international company has attempted to STEAL from an American immigrant from Israel named Uzi Nissan, for whom the term”Nissan” had a generic family meaning long before any Nissan gained protected IP status or became a massive company?
    Certainly makes me lose respect for that company, BIG TIME.
    Spread the word!
    http://www.digest.com/Email_Media_Form.htm

    Reply
  4. AHEAD OF TIME

    Thanks for doing this Rick.
    SF that’s great idea weekly column posts on DNJournal – Ricksblog – Domaining – Dnforum etc

    Reply
  5. Joao

    “The court ordered NMC to pay $58,000 as cost under rule 68, this is less than 2% of what the cost was to defend this case.”
    That’s how you get small fish to giveaway gold. Fear for not having the same resources!
    It is time to put fear on their asses.
    Great case!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.