Sharks and Minnows and Domain Names that are Priceless

Morning Folks!!

When you are in shark infested waters my advice to you is to have a bigger, meaner, crazier shark on your side than the other. An army of minnows is no match. You can't act like a minnow and fight sharks. As domainers you are fighting battles on several fronts and many don't even know it. Whether it is payouts or reverse domain name hijacking or the new gTLD's or falling values of marginal domains or any of half a dozen other fronts including rapid take down of your domains.

Sharks operate on fear and minnows are no match. So I am keenly aware some don't like my style. But my friend, it is MY style not yours. You can be whatever fish you choose to be. The way I defend my PROPERTY from THIEVES is something for me to decide. The way I see things unfolding is for ME to decide. Nobody forces any of it on you. But if the shoe fits, ask why instead of getting angry. Human nature has us wired to react to certain things in ways that are not in our best interest. So if you know that, maybe ask the question is being a minnow a good way to survive in shark infested waters?

Sure, clams do very well. They don't move much however.

There are the movers and shakers of the sea and the sharks of business. We each get to navigate things as we see fit. And if you want to be a clam, that is YOUR choice.

But now we are in a an open  world and there are many here that come to oppress. If you don't see, recognize and undersatnd that, it just could be you that is missing something. "Free will" is a very threatenting thing to some countries, society's, groups or people. So when somebody like me is this outspoken, it is THE most fearful thing in their lives. Free thought?? Free Speech? Free Will? TENS of millions have DIED in that struggle and it continues everyday of the year for as long as history has been written or will be written. Billions of peple trying to opress billions of others. I reject it and history has rejected it but the battle stll rages.

Words are a THREAT to those that don't understand this concept and therefore they react in a facist sort of way because they themselves may not even know what is going on underneath. Deep underneath. Some see collaboration as a threat to fear. On the other hand many of US see it as an opportunity to grow and expand and learn and progress. FACTS are never anythuig to be feared. But many fear facts because they would have to rethink so many things. So DAMN the facts! We all do it folks!! We are all guilty at some times of this. The POWER is acknowledging and harnessing that power and BENDING it in a positive way vs as a destructive way. But when bending does not work. DESTROYING does and so we become SHARKS fighting SHARKS and that is the game on the field.

So be a minnow on the sidelines and crticize and surpress and defend and be eaten alive.......or fight back and defeat FEAR with a bigger FEAR!

I have learned that fear is one of the most paralyzing forces known to man. Some are a victim of fear. Some use fear as a weapon and some never even thought about t until this post. So if some PRICK is trying to instill fear in me, maybe my JOB is to create a BIGGER fear for HIM?? Sound reasonable?

So when it comes to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking for example, I think I have been able to create a bigger FEAR and that makes folks think of the consequences before rather than after and that leads to different thinking. FEAR backed up by EXAMPLE!.

Now most missed this little tidbt last weekend but the CEO of P&G rsigned over the Memorial Day Weekend. No fanfare. Effective immediately. Did it have something to do with Swash.com and this post?? I don't know but a Bob McDonald was there for over 30 years............something exploded.

So for folks that don't like my style, tough. It's MY style and I suggest you get some style of your own. That way I get to do what you do!

We all get to get angry in a different manner when sharks try and bite and when sharks try and steal. What works for me, may not work for you. What works for you, may not work for me. I look at too many that DEMAND respect but never takes an opportunity to EARN respect. My rections may be "Colorful" but it certainly beats a wrong minded reaction based on being a minnow that fears answers to questions still being asking.

They use intimidation and fear. But if your intimidation is more dangerous and their fear is greater, then you have changed the equation and you have changed it in YOUR favor and the more you do that the less you have to deal with it.

Predators are sharkes by definition. The light of day is the enemy of a business shark. Don't like my style, fine, I'll gladly step aside and allow somebody else to fight the fight and put themselves out there for public ridicule. Step right up Captain Courageous. Minnows don't qualify. Step right up. Just use your REAL name!

Rick Schwartz

The Unfortunate Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) of RonPaul.org

Morning Folks!!

You can tell by the comments that there is a lot of mixed emotion on this one. I have yet to sort it out myself because of the "Unique facts". But my job here is to simply publish the results and sometimes some commentary. This one I need to think about. I need to examine the facts closely but this is a decision by a 3 member panel and it is supported with their findings and as you will read below the domain was offered at "no charge, with no strings attached" by the owner.



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

"Respondent has requested, based on the evidence presented, that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. In view of the unique facts of this case, in which the evidence demonstrates that Respondent offered to give the Domain Name ronpaul.org to Complainant for no charge, with no strings attached, the Panel is inclined to agree. Instead of accepting the Domain Name, Complainant brought this proceeding. A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking seems to this Panel to be appropriate in the circumstances."

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!

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

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

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

I have 41 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129. Each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!

And a special tip of the hat to John Berryhill who is the leading RDNH attorney in the world. I am counting and will post how many wins he has recorded on behalf of his clients. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call "Capitalism" and NEGOTIATE!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case #12 TrailBlazer.com The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled under USD 60,000. 

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

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

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

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

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

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case #35 adjudicate.org.au The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au. Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online Advice, WIPO Case No. D2003-0297 states that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if the Complainant “knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




 
Related articles

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

Is it TIME to Make a CLAIM against the RDNH Domain if it is not a .Com?

CyberSquatters Meet CyberF*uckers

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

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

Related articles

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

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

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

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

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

P&G Buys Swash.com AFTER Being CONVICTED of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking!!

Morning Folks!!

As reported by DomainNameWire.com, P&G finally stepped up to the plate and bought the domain that just weeks ago they had been found guilty of trying to Reverse Hijack with THIS DECISION and many follow up posts by yours truly.

I think we will reach a watershed moment this year and while attempted hijackings are up, they will crest and then begin to recede as so many decisions are against them. Plus they are realizing that there is more than a loss involved. ME! I am the SOB that is out to destroy them just like they were out to destroy some unsuspecting domain registrants and their dreams.

So when it comes to REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING we will closely monitor all developments and we will do whatever it takes to stop it. Once they get convicted, their reputation is owned by ME to do what I see fit with as far as circulation of their misdeeds.

Rick Schwartz

Related articles

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

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

CyberSquatters Meet CyberF*uckers

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

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

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

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

Related articles

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

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

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

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

How I Gave the JoeTorre.com Domain Name to Joe Torre Back in 1999

Morning Folks!!


So it is back in 1964. Joe Torre was the first autograph I ever got as a kid when he was a catcher visiting the Mets at Shea Stadium and with the Braves I think before Atlanta. I was a kid so it ia bit fuzzy. Fast Forward to 1999. I own JoeTorre.com. Joe Torre is the manager for New York Yankee's. The 1998, 1999 and 2000 World Champions


I want to get the domain to Joe Torre. What to do? What to do? So I wrote the following letter to the New York Post. Don't think I ever heard back from the post but I did hear back from Joe Torre's folks. I asked nothing in return but they did send me a few autograph baseballs and that was more than enough.


Joe
Torre2


Hi,


My name is Rick Schwartz. I own about 3000 .com addresses.
The reason I am writing this is because one of the .com domain addresses that I
own is JoeTorre.com which I registered in mid 1998.


As time has gone on, the word “Cybersquatter” has entered our
lingo. I have been made aware of the subtle differences of what is and is not
allowed in reference to domain names and trademarks. The line is so fine that the courts are
clogging up with these type cases.


I also want to call attention to “Corporate bullies” that
intimidate individuals and small business people into giving them domains that
they have no legal rights to. A perfect example is the Lawsuit in which Lilly
Industries is involved in with the fight over goofoff.com. “Goof off” is a
common word found in Websters and goof-off is a paint remover that few have
heard of. Details can be found at http://www.goofoff.com/lilly.html


Point is it is important to define the line between
cybersquatting and the rights of legitimate domain owners. In our case we have
a 10 year plan for development of our domains and now that what is and what is
not considered infringement is getting more clearly defined, I am going thru
our list to see what domains could be over that line.


While Joe Torre may be a common name, there is only one
“Famous” Joe Torre. It is in this regard that I would like to turn this domain
over to the rightful owner.


I would like the NY Post to do the honors. I figure it is
easier to get a hold of the Post than Joe Torre.


Thanks for your time!!


Regards,


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


Related articles

This Jerk Owns The Perfect Domain Name For My Business and Isn't Doing Anything With It

Rick's Board is Back! Domain King's Joint Venture Group Grand Opening!!!

Blast from the Past and the Famous 18 Wheeler Story



They Come with Passion or Money. Seldom Both. How to Turn Passion into Dollars

Morning Folks!!


You can sell an asset many ways and you can sell to many people. But at the end of the day it comes to money and/or passion. Money is the simple way but passion comes with more opportunity.


Passion is one of the only things that can substituted for money. Passion has value. But only when matched up with something you know and have enjoyed some success with. Passion is the main ingredient in a domain lease not money. Less money gives the seller more opportunity to share in the upside.


It saddens me to see domains sold that I KNOW can be leased for the same amount in just 1-2 years. That is desperation or shortsightedness. Not all great domains are lease-able. But many are and my eye can tell the difference.


I could have sold candy.com for 3x what I paid for it. But holding on to it gives me 2.5x what I paid for it EVERY year and it is increasing. Plus I now own 10% of the comany. Plus I share in the next sale of candy.com at an even higher percentage rate. Which was better to do? Is it easy? Nope? Can it be done? Yes. Is it easier to lease today than 5 years ago? By a mile!


So before you sell, you should at a minimum ask me if the domain has a lease potential. Transform a $10,000 one time sale into a $1000/month revenue generating machine. I am sorry, but anyone not seeing the upside is missing the boat. AGAIN!


Have a GREAT Day!

Rick Schwartz


My Domain Name of the Day. SandyCam.com

Morning Folks!!


When I check my stats each day one of the things I look for is domains that all of a sudden get traffic. This morning was no different. I was surprised to see a domain that usually gets virtually no traffic got 442 visitors yesterday and poised to get much more in the days ahead. I registered Sandycam.com back in 1998.


The first thing I did was change the keywords so I would get relevant results and I expect the click thru rate will go way up today. Since this is going to be an historic storm, it will be interesting to watch what happens.


So just sitting here at the Finish Line waiting for events to catch up with 1998.


And if you are anywhere in the Northeast coast and inland areas, FLOODS and TREES are what is your enemy. Do not underestimate flooding and flash floods etc.. Remember, most people die AFTER the storm is over. Hope to see you online during.....This IS history in the making. This is breaking records and will be talked about for decades to come. A slow motion tragedy getting stronger not weaker. There is nowhere to run once the storm starts as roads will be blocked by down trees and electric lines. Been there...........Be safe!


Have a GREAT Day!

Rick Schwartz


Low Tide, High Tide….When it Comes to Business, it Does Not Matter! Just Start at the Finish!

Morning Folks,


There is low tide and high tide in both life and in business. They all have their place. They all have their advantages. They all have their disadvantages. When you see those tides clearly and know they exist and adapt to each, there is no such thing as bad times. There are just different times.


Good and bad things happen during any and all of those times. Of course if you don't look at it that way, it becomes hard to play the game and you will likely drown regardless of the tide. It is the understanding of these tides that separate the groups that thrive from the ones that struggle. I invest a lot of time in my life trying to show my readers the way to thrive. The only way to thrive is understand and be master of the 8 inches between your ears. Every win or loss or failure or success comes from within that 8 inch space.


The past 4-5 years have been a lowering of the tide. Still many made their fortunes regardless. If you look back I write extensively about it as the tide began to recede and I planned for these tough times. Part of my plan was how do I parachute over 5 years and still be financially strong while others became financially weak. Then at the depth of the weakness to be able to grab that low hanging fruit? How do I do that at a time when domains were at record selling levels? That keyword 'Patience' just keeps popping up because the tides are about patience. The seasons are about patience. Life is about patience. I am not a patient person. Not by any stretch. But somewhere along the way I was able to define patience. In different situations the time you alot to patience is different. Most bad things happen because somebody ran out of patience a bit too soon in that 8 inch space.


These are challenging but also very exciting times. Let me be clear as I have said for years. There is more opportunity at this very second than all of history glued together. But if you don't know the difference between opportunity and a shadow, then you lose. If you can not master your mind, you lose.


Then it all circles back to decisions. That is the defining point of life. Making good decisions. No matter how big or how small, any decision can lead to good or bad places. Where do those decisions happen? In that 8 inch playing field.


So when I look at life and the future through my eyes, I always see beyond the current tide. Beyond the current conditions. Beyond the cycles that are happening. They are just factors to deal with. When there is a storm your job is to hunker down and be patient.


I have never stopped buying domain names. But they have to fit my definition to tie my dollars up. I can just as easily go out spend and enjoy that money. When I go through my lists of domains I have bought on the secondary market most domains I buy are $100, $500, $1000 and up to $5000. That is MY sweet spot. That is the game that the formula I use fits the best. And it does not matter if it was 17 years ago or today. I still look for the same keys.


Think about it. In most cases you are buying something that nobody else on the planet wants at that moment in time. So the upside MUST be there. How do you find the upside? By looking at it through the eyes of others. Through the eys of different tides. Through the eyes of different decades. Through the eyes of progress and how things might unfold. I place a bet on an assumption based on what I have learned and what I am aware of. I look for the finish line first. I start at the finish line and work backwards to the beginning. Always have. Always will. Find the answer first and then figure out how to get there without bending reality or kidding yourself.


2012 has been a great year in that there has been a lot of movement and folks online are getting more sophisticated and business is starting to understand that it is SALES that will either keep them in business or put them out of business. The website is no longer the hobby. It is the lifeline of nearly every living and breathing business and entity and person.


When I negotiate it is not about what they see. It is what I see. But when the two merge, great things happen. These mergers of the mind are now with much less headwinds. I know about those headwinds fighting for 17 years in something still few believe in or truly understand. But that can not sway me because I start at the finish line and the key is patience. To know that a certain journey will take a certain amount of time. See when you start at the beginning you really can't judge where the finish is nor how long it will take to get there. But when you start your journey at the finish line and trace the trail back to today, you can be pretty damn close to predicting how long that journey will take including the wrong turns along the way.


I was sad to read the post by Eric Borgos at Impulse the other day. He has been around a very long time and has/had a great portfolio of very valuable names. Somewhere long the way he made decisions that just did not pay off. The time and expense and loss of 4000 mini-sites among others. Like I say, sometimes doing nothing is just much better. Sadly, this is an example of what I have talked about all these years. Sadly folks are resorting to selling domains from need and not a point of strength. That's why I look at the weekly domain sales reports through different sets of eyes.


Great domains will not go down in value for anyone reading this in their lifetime. Circumstance will FORCE sales that are less than their value and a weak market, low tide, will allow that to happen. But only if you participate in that game at this low tide cycle.


See in the next 12-18 months I am seeing an explosion of business. Now let me also say that the tide will get lower before it begins to rise but the rising tide is now well within sight and those that make it there are all going to be very well rewarded.


It's been over 2 weeks since TRAFFIC ended and I have yet to get back on my feet. I spent a few hours in the hospital on Monday and still days away from fully recovering, but I am no longer sick.


Our health is everything. But I am also so happy that I constructed a life when I was incapacitated from a bad back back in 1988. It was then and there that I knew I had to construct a life and income stream capable of producing income whether I was healthy or not. Old or young. Working or not. Until then, if I did not travel, I made no money. I was a akin to a waitress. When you don't show up and wait on tables, you don't earn, you don't eat, you can't survive.


So I look at the last 2 weeks and while I have not taken care of all of my business, I was able to piece meal about 95% of it a few minutes here and there. Probably my 2 most productive weeks of the year. So many seeds planted over those years that they sprout 24/7 on their time line not mine. Low tide, high tide. Sick or well. The path to the finish line passes right by my front door because I started at the finish line and planned for that to happen even when that finish line was a dream on the shores of the unknown wilderness. More news to follow.


Have a GREAT Day!

Rick Schwartz