Jaguar/Land Rover Found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)

Afternoon Folks!!

When will these CHEAP BASTARDS ever learn? I can also call them would be THIEVES which is a LOT worse. I'll let everyone else play nice. I will keep calling them out until this stops. Sorry to the politically correct. You don't play nice with people who abuse the process and try to STEAL! You stick it up their asses, never let them forget and let it serve as a lesson to the next PREDATOR.

As Michael Berkens has reported today, Jaguar/Land Rover is the latest to have been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) on the domain name Complainant is Jaguar Land Rover Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer M. Hetu of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Michigan, USA.

Hope you folks are PROUD!!??

Another company run by CHEAP BASTARDS that has TARNISHED a brand forever! I am sure these idiots will be pissed at me, but they should be pissed at whoever internally signed off on this RISK to a Grand BRAND. If they worked for me, they would not see lunchtime. So let their anger flow! And why didn't they get a heads up by Jennifer M. Hetu of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP?? Surely at this stage you would think.......

They join a growing list of BIG names like Procter and Gamble and what I called the "Biggest Management Shakeup in 100 Years" in being labeled thieves by the governing panel. Let's see if heads roll before the end of the year on this mess. The entire decision can be found here and it is quite the read. DomainNameWire labels it as a "Scathing Critique".

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

You can be certain I will have more to say about Jaguar and Land Rover and how they have soiled their brand. Cheap vs PRICELESS! Who is responsible there for this mess?? Who made that decision? Who approved it? Who?? Can you say SHAKE UP??!!

And I get to point to and USE Jaguar/Land Rover and Procter and Gamble to discourage the next CHEAP BASTARD that would rather STEAL than PAY!

Now as I offered Procter and Gamble, Jaguar/Land Rover can come here and respond or hide under their desks, think it is no biggie, then wait until the fallout happens. I will add them to the current list and repost. The Hall of Shame! The Scarlett letter. They OWN it!

Some say $100,000 fine would discourage this behavior.


The price they pay NOW is far more serious and far more lasting. It's tarnishing a BILLION DOLLAR brand. The harm that was done was PRICELESS. It can't be measured, erased or fixed. $100,000 fine does not discourage and may even encourage. People losing their jobs over things like this is a much bigger price to pay but that is a small price to pay in comparison to the self-inflicted damage they have done. Their decision, whoever made them, whoever was involved in it should be fired. They risked the companies good name for what reason?? Folks should be able to see inexcusable a mile away.


Rick Schwartz


10 thoughts on “Jaguar/Land Rover Found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)

  1. Ms Domainer


    This is all meaningless until actual MONEY awards are attached to these RDNH decisions.

    Companies filing UDRPs should be required to pay a refundable deposit, to be paid directly to the respondent in the case of an RDNH finding.

    Otherwise, the industry is just beating its collective chest — loud, but signifying nothing.


    1. Rick Schwartz

      Ms. Doaminer,
      Having this ON RECORD for all time in INK is still the best way we can fight TODAY.
      Throwing your hands up in the air does nothing to circulate what is going on. It is circulation and outrage that leads to laws being enacted.
      So we can only each do OUR part.

  2. Ron

    People that buy Jaguars, and Land Rovers are not going to care, having it in print, yes kills their goodwill, but the reason they are taking this route is because it is a free route. How about the $100K penalty worked both ways, if found guilty the domain owner can be awarded $100K, problem solved in most cases, the companies would attempt to make a faithful purchase, rather than an attempted theft of the asset.

  3. Rob Sequin

    Rick welcomes the new lifetime member Land Rover to the reverse domain name hijacker list. Shame on Land Rover’s legal department and all those involved in the attempted theft of this domain name.

  4. Tony Mechelynck

    Geez… Land Rover filing a complaint on one of its own retailers, called MountainRover, Inc., because it uses its (MountainRover’s) company name as a domain name and (thus, they say) make themselves guilty of “trademark infringement”… and that 12 years after the domain name started to be used. As the arbitrator said, that only would have made it an open-and-shut case even if the other “complaints” had been better founded than they were (which was zero AFAICT). Where will corporate stupidity end…?

  5. Tony Mechelynck

    I don’t know where you bought it (it’s almost a year ago after all), but it’d have been nice if you’d bought it from MountainRover, Inc. They sell them, as the arbitration decision found out.


Leave a Reply

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