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

Morning Folks!!

Another great day for domainers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Folks!!

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

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

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

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

THAT is how SEO REALLY works!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have 18 years and many millions of dollars invested in my online business as well as many of you readers. So if some IDIOT thinks he can just STEAL our hard work by hiring some hotshot and thinking $15k is all the skin they have in the game, then they have to live with the fallout and that fallout can be severe and  life changing. That's what BOTH the attorney and the client get from now on because attorney's know better at this point in time. So the job of the attorney is not be part of a hijacking and to AID and ABET. It is to educate their client or FIRE their client. Your CHOICE and just remember that YOUR NAME will be included in the fallout. It's not up to you and it is not in your control once you AID and ABET. And make NO MISTAKE, the panels today are not ignorant. The attorney is the mastermind of the hijacking as well as the driver of the car the way I see it. You have been hired as a contract hit man but the hit is not on a person, it is on property. Your client is in the back seat directing you and paying YOU to help him HIJACK a domain name. The MOMENT you go along with that, you are just as guilty because YOU KNOW what you are doing. It is premeditated. You are just as guilty aren't you my attorney??

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Schwartz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have 43 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129 or more. Each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Rick Schwartz

 

Reverse Domain Hijackers Scarlett Letter List. Updated!!

Afternoon Folks!!

Another great day for domainers!

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Folks!!

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

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

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

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

THAT is how SEO REALLY works!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have 18 years and many millions of dollars invested in my online business as well as many of you readers. So if some IDIOT thinks he can just STEAL our hard work by hiring some hotshot and thinking $15k is all the skin they have in the game, then they have to live with the fallout and that fallout can be severe and  life changing. That's what BOTH the attorney and the client get from now on because attorney's know better at this point in time. So the job of the attorney is not be part of a hijacking and to AID and ABET. It is to educate their client or FIRE their client. Your CHOICE and just remember that YOUR NAME will be included in the fallout. It's not up to you and it is not in your control once you AID and ABET. And make NO MISTAKE, the panels today are not ignorant. The attorney is the mastermind of the hijacking as well as the driver of the car the way I see it. You have been hired as a contract hit man but the hit is not on a person, it is on property. Your client is in the back seat directing you and paying YOU to help him HIJACK a domain name. The MOMENT you go along with that, you are just as guilty because YOU KNOW what you are doing. It is premeditated. You are just as guilty aren't you my attorney??

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Schwartz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have 43 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129 or more. Each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Schwartz

 

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

Morning Folks!!

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

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

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

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

THAT is how SEO REALLY works!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have 18 years and many millions of dollars invested in my online business as well as many of you readers. So if some IDIOT thinks he can just STEAL our hard work by hiring some hotshot and thinking $15k is all the skin they have in the game, then they have to live with the fallout and that fallout can be severe and  life changing. That's what BOTH the attorney and the client get from now on because attorney's know better at this point in time. So the job of the attorney is not be part of a hijacking and to AID and ABET. It is to educate their client or FIRE their client. Your CHOICE and just remember that YOUR NAME will be included in the fallout. It's not up to you and it is not in your control once you AID and ABET. And make NO MISTAKE, the panels today are not ignorant. The attorney is the mastermind of the hijacking as well as the driver of the car the way I see it. You have been hired as a contract hit man but the hit is not on a person, it is on property. Your client is in the back seat directing you and paying YOU to help him HIJACK a domain name. The MOMENT you go along with that, you are just as guilty because YOU KNOW what you are doing. It is premeditated. You are just as guilty aren't you my attorney??

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Schwartz

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Rick Schwartz

 


 

 

 

www.LEFT.RIGHT left, right, left, right, left

'www.LEFT.RIGHT left, right, left, right,
left.'


Here’s another of Danny’s pre-written posts. I think it’s
going to make him a few enemies. Oh well, probably about time he got some
thicker skin. He’s really just too damn nice. ;-)


Brutal…but nice.


Rick Schwartz


By Danny Welsh
JointVentures.com
What happens when 1800 extensions spawn
100,000 marketing campaigns using a cutesy www.whatever.whocares that we all
know will leak traffic to www.whatever.com?


Some 'brands' extensions, some 'geo'
extensions, some 'generic' extensions...each will have DIFFERENT
consequences, but all will leak for a LONG time.


If you know that, what must happen down the line? Can you
profit from it? Sure, many newbie domainers will. Stay away from trademarks and
make some money down the road maybe. For guys that hand regged dot com's 20
years ago I personally just don't see it as a smart use of time or resources
UNLESS:


1. They own the registry-- so they sell volume. Hey, Rick's
on record saying 'anything can be sold' and I agree.


2. They own
www.RIGHT.com matching for all www.LEFT.RIGHT's that get registered-- so they
profit from the leak.


All I'm saying is
Rick has given this more thought than any thought leader I personally know. And
I see human nature being the BIGGEST factor.


Drive.BMW is an example of a .brand extension, right? Those
marketing campaigns will send some traffic to DriveBMW.com-- for many years--
every time it's used in mass advertising. Don't be surprised when it also sends
traffic to Drive.COM


So if the big branded company marketing a domain name in the
next 3 years like 'www.LEFT.RIGHT' does their due diligence they will
own FIRST:


www.LEFTRIGHT.com


www.LEFT.com


In the case of the brands like BMW turning their company
name into a .brand TLD, they'd of course for the most part already own
www.RIGHT.com.


Except let's not forget about the Nissan.com's of the world.
:)


Ladies and gentlemen… it ain't gonna
be pretty.


Whoever owns UDRPLawyer.com and DNAttorney.com and so many
more descriptive domains for an emerging service sector better be prepared for
the onslaught of interest in needing to hire anyone who can help, and who will
companies turn to but those that have credibility within the world they purport
to have (i.e. the operators of generic legal domains pertaining to domaining
law).


Whoever has experience and a track record doing domain name
law from both sides of the table better be prepared for the onslaught of
clients you can grab in an exploding sector of law. Because you’ll be among the biggest winners in a field full of
losers as everybody gets on the 1-800--WHOCANISUE.com merry go round of real
life business in the 21st century when 1800 .crap extensions try to
create a second miracle and fail
.


Who will be safe from lawsuits with a precedent of decisions
where the domain owner WON against all frivolous complaints and has a generic
investing intent to point to? Who will make more money than every before? Who
will be labeled a visionary when it all shakes out and who will be labeled a
cybersquatter?


These things are all human nature. Sure, many folks are bitter that the
“500” own the very best .com domain names in the world. Hell, I was one of
them. But everybody likes an underdog story, and it’s all in who the
storyteller is and how the story is presented.


Victors write history.


Domains that look like these types -- GENERIC.com,
SOCIAL.com, PRODUCT.com, SERVICE.com, NOUN.com, VERB.com, GERUND.com,
ADJECTIVE.com, COUNTRY.com, GEOBIGNICHE.com and a few others will STAND OUT
increasingly as time rolls on.


And the guys and gals who saw the value of Hotels.com or
*any* CATEGORY.com value domain names before the masses…before the advertising
agencies…before the media…before the academics…before the ‘psychics…and before
every single “hotel” or “category” company on that planet themselves…


Will be in a position to tell the
story of struggle, frustration, patience, income, increased valuation, public
acceptance and increasingly triumph after triumph in what guys like me will
point to and say this is one of the greatest “underdog” stories ever told in
the history of capitalism.


Trademark UDRP's that increase in the next few years BECAUSE
of 1800 “.brand” and similar new domain extensions are going to hurt ONLY .com
domainers that have made money on leaks from big companies for years. Expect
the rush of .whatever to bring a huge # of '.com' decisions where the
company claimant WINS. DriveBMW.com is irrelevant to this discussion. All
trademarks are. The smart investors in domains don't buy trademarked domains
and most never have.


Every lawsuit and trademark UDRP is going to HURT ONLY .com
domainers that have made money on leaks from big companies for years. We call
those folks cybersquatters.


Expect the rush of
www.whatever.brand extensions being marketed to bring a huge # of
'whateverbrand.com' or 'brandwhatever.com' decisions where
the company claimant WINS.


DriveBMW.com is irrelevant to this discussion except as a
specific TYPE of extension (i.e. .brand) where if you think it through you can
PREDICT what is likely to happen and how they'll leak.


Many .brand companies
that have trademarks and mass market whatever.brand domain names are going to
leak to .com's that are registered by cybersquatters and never should have been
allowed to be registered in the first place.


Yeah, I said it. If you registered something like
DriveBMW.com it’s theft unless your business idea is different from the company
that matches whatever the “brand” is, and their products and services.


How many used Lamborghinis does the manufacturer sell?
Probably zero. Manufacturers can’t control the after-market sales of their
products in a resale market. So “UsedBrand.com” is going to be pretty safe
(Rick…you can remove the last two paragraphs if you disagree…leave this note in
here if you want…my research indicates these are true statements but you may
want to amend with your superior insider knowledge)


The smart investors in domains don't buy trademarked domains and
most never have.


So what happens when the media covers a growing trend over
the small cybersquatter that owns ABCBrand.com being sued and LOSING? Let them
compare that to the domain investor that time and again WINS with PRODUCT.COM
or SERVICE.COM when a greedy company tries to steal it. Give the media time and
they'll figure out the difference between generic investor VISIONARY and a cybersquatting
thief eating their fill on scraps that fall from the rightful table of a big
company.


Follow the line of thought from beginning to end game…


If you expect that these things WILL happen…and they will…


What does that do
then to the value of every PRODUCT.com? To the value of every SERVICE.com? To
the value of every CATEGORY.com? To the value of every SOCIALGROUP.com?


Think it through. Think it all the way thru the roof. See if
you come to the same conclusions Rick and I have for what's going to happen in
the next 36 months.


I say if already successful “.com” domainer folks want to
dabble in “.whatever”, well…whatever.


( ASIDE: notice how
even the guys selling it can't help but use that 'catchy' phrase
'.whatever' which they really shouldn't because it's pretty
derogatory and positioning is the name of the game!)


(ASIDE #2: I’m not
and very likely never will but if *I* were building a company selling
“.whatever” domains I'd do it from www.leftright.com and I'd set up shop at
www.left.right). I'd educate the end user about what an extension IS (because
trust me, they don’t know…the average guy knows .com and that is IT…in his mind
“www.” and “.com” ARE the same as that thing called the ‘Internet’).


So if you want to speculatively invest and buy .whatever
domains, go for it. I don’t have time for it. It'll take the few of them that
catch on less time than it took for .com to catch on because the few of 1800
new extensions that end up surviving can leverage .com's wind for 20
years...but it's still gonna be an uphill battle! Good luck.


Maybe you as a domainer hand register a PRODUCT.whatever in
2013 and your children's children will get a chance to do with those what guys
like Rick and others in the 500 can do RIGHT NOW with .com's from registrations
20 years ago. Hey, somebody's gotta win the lottery, right? But that’s a
game for a new wave of domainers. I simply cannot see one of the top .com
domain name owners in the world caring and it’s odd to me that any would try
with the exception of only a handful that are rich enough to simply hedge their
bets.


Set all the trademarks aside and .com's that are generic will go up
in value.


Faster and faster.


The next 3 years will witness the
telling of one of the greatest underdog stories in the history of business…I
wasn’t there for the beginning of the journey with the 500, but I’m here now to
tell the story.


And tell it I will. And when I tell you that the world of
business will march to the beat of the 500’s drummers before the fat lady
sings...It’s true.


The 1800www.Left.Right Domain Name Imitations coming to market
can “Left, right, left, right, left, right” and try to create a new drum
cadence in the market all they want.


For anyone seeking a GREAT domain name to give their
business a chance to Succeed.com, who opens their eyes and ears and does their
due diligence…it will become
increasingly clear in the next few years that there is only ONE “Right” choice “Left” standing for any SERIOUS
BUSINESS that has SERIOUS AMBITION to make a name for itself globally online
.


Long live “.com”!


Danny Welsh
JointVentures.com


350 Visitors to US are 350 Lost Customers to Somebody Else.

Morning Folks!!


If you have a domain getting 350 daily type ins for example you have a business. 350 is just a number to us. But go downtown today where ever you are and count how many customers go in a store in any given DAY. FEW stores are likely to get 350 customers in a day. MOST won't get 350 customers in a week!! Don't believe me? Then you have never been in retail. Then you have never had to work on a commission only basis. Sell nothing....eat nothing.


Yes, big box stores and McDonald's etc will get the 350 customers and then some. But go count and see how long it takes. Still a number of hours and still a number of sales in those hours.


It is unfortunate that most retailers have not been able to harness the power online. They accept 350 customers online walking in and buying nothing but would they be stupid enough to allow 350 customers to come in the store, make no sales and not ask why??


I am finally seeing the focus change to sales and profits on the Internet. Boy has this been a SLOW process. But it is finally here. Investor money is drying up and now startups are finally going to have to resort to sales. That my friends is the evolution I have been waiting for. Sales. Sales. It's all about sales and now that folks are starting to get that point, things will change fast and furiously. Fast for me anyways. 3 years is fast. We are less than that and we have already entered the 'Gravitational Pull'.


Go get 1 million likes or 1 sale. Which has more value? Which buys food? We took a huge detour and gamble with 'Social' media. But what about 'Commercial' media? What about trackable sales? What about new clients and new business and repeat business?


Social is 'Word of mouth' and it is very important. But 'Word of mouth' is a bi-product of doing things right. You don't start with 'Word of Mouth', you start off with sales that CREATE 'Word of mouth'. Most online have it ASS BACKWARDS and it is absurd!!


We are also on the verge of finding out it just may not work. Facebook now 50% of the IPO and still has yet to find the bottom. Blah blah,blah comes AFTER the sale!


So a word to all startups......SELL SOMETHING!


Until then.....Like us on Facebook!


Have a GREAT Day!

Rick Schwartz


Márcio Mello Chaves, Labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER in Saveme.com Case!!

Morning Folks!!


Welcome to SaveMe.com readers who are now coming to THIS blog post.


Bem-vindo aos leitores SaveMe.com que agora estão chegando a este blog.


Márcio Mello Chaves, aka Chaves aka Márcio Marcio Chaves foi considerado culpado de nome de domínio Apropriação indébita e má-fé por um painel de pessoa unânime 3 da Organização Mundial da Propriedade Intelectual (OMPI) em Genebra,


Tradução em português abaixo


I wrote this on May 2nd and have hoped I would be able to publish it in this form. I have to have 3 versions of this ready for when the decision comes down but I never was able to physically write the other 2. It would make me ill to even start. If you are reading THIS VERSION, we have reason to celebrate my friends as Marcio Mello Chaves, aka Marcio Chaves of buscape.com.br and saveme.com.br and brother Heitor have been labeled as REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKERS (RDNH)!! An attempted THEFT by an abuse of the system! Acted in 'Bad Faith.' GUILTY! If they did this in the real world, they would likely stand trial on criminal charges. That won't happen but most of us will agree that what they did was criminal whether acknowledged by the law at this time or not.


Márcio Mello Chaves, aka Márcio Chaves aka Marcio Chaves has been found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING and BAD FAITH by a unanimous 3 person panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva as he represented his brother Heitor Chaves and is now the OFFICIAL POSTER BOYS for Domain Hijacking and this type of attempted domain theft!! I do mean this literally. I will be having posters and banners made up with their images and ignite a worldwide campaign starting at T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Anyone looking these CLOWNS up will find out just what he and his brother Heitor attempted to do and got SPANKED! GUILTY! NEXT!!!!!


Hijacker Hijacker2
MARCIO CHAVES BROTHER HEITOR CHAVES OF BUSCAPE.COM.BR FOUND GUILTY OF REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING. THEY WILL WEAR THESE LABELS FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.


Feel free to display and distribute and point to this case when you are getting bullied. Don't take this SHIT from anybody EVER AGAIN! Big or small.


I believe not only is this a big win, but it is as clear and decisive a case of RDNH that has ever been decided. WE get to point to this episode for years to come as we have to deal with more and more predators trying to HIJACK our assets. This will not be the last we hear of this particular SaveMe.com case. This is a building block that will be used by me to protect other domains by creating case law.


I hope this case is used in other defenses and becomes a turning point in how folks approach this type situation. These folks are FRAUDS that tried a scheme that bent the spirit of the UDRP and it backfired on them in the short run and the long run. They have poisoned the well of negotiations and like they say in the old west, 'their money ain't no good around these parts.'


I think folks are beginning to understand that these decisons can affect the entire future of people and the days of terrible decisions will be less and less from this point on. I beleive there will be consequences for those that over reach on all sides. There is some definition that is now becoming visible. There will always be bad decisions, but there will be less of them and many will now go to Federal Court where standards are quite different and all eyes are watching.


You can consider this post and the one to come as 'spiking' the football in the end zone. I don't need to throw an elbow, I just need to shed light on this practice and use these CLOWNS as the vehicle to do it. HIJACKERS! So finds this world panel. Thieves in the social sense that got caught red handed for all their CUSTOMERS to see. In ink forever! NEVER to be trusted again!! That is their sentence! The Internet is about 'Character' and Reputation' and in this medium, they have destroyed both for themselves.


Today we celebrate a great victory. Tomorrow we start using the 2 x 4 with nails (metaphorically speaking) by spreading and circulating this story far and wide. I want to congratulate and thank my partner Howard Neu and all the other lawyers in the space that sent emails and offered their support. This was a huge victory and I can't put in words tonight what it really means. I only know what a loss would have meant and that would have been a very dark day for all. Howard's response was masterful, ballsy and we won BIG!


Since I met Howard in 1999 I told him of this case. I did not know which domain it would be, but I knew the case. I have prepared for years. I have written about it for years. It was only a matter of time and so it was. So these guys brought a knife to a nuclear fight and luckily it came late enough in the game in which panels are weighing things more evenly as so much is at stake!


D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

'In this case, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant’s representatives were well aware of the importance of the chronological issue. The Complainant’s representatives are evidently familiar with the UDRP and both the Complaint and Amended Complaint make extensive reference to previous UDRP decisions. Yet the version of the Complaint originally filed simply ignored the issue of registration in bad faith, labelling the third factor as “Bad Faith In the Domain Name Use”. This must have involved deleting the reference to registration in bad faith from WIPO’s complaint template. After the Centre drew attention to this deficiency, the Complainant filed the Amended Complaint which belatedly addressed the issue of bad faith registration and, for the first time, invoked Octogen, seemingly as an afterthought.


Furthermore, the Complainant even predicted in the Amended Complaint that the Respondent would make an allegation of RDNH and so the Complainant clearly knew that it was skating on very thin ice.


The Complainant argued that RDNH cannot arise because the Complainant has merely sought cancellation of the disputed domain name, not transfer. The Panel disagrees. First, complainants should not be allowed to file cases known to be fatally flawed without the possibility of a finding of RDNH against them, by simply fine tuning the remedy sought. Second, as mentioned above, RDNH is defined as use of the Policy in bad faith “to attempt to deprive” a registrant of a domain name. If the Panel had ordered cancellation, the disputed domain name would in due course return to the domain pool where it would no doubt be subject to the attentions of the Complainant and others, with only a possibility that the Respondent itself might ultimately re-register it (assuming the Respondent sought to do so). Accordingly, the Complainant’s request for cancellation is no less an attempt to deprive the Respondent of the disputed domain name than a request for transfer would have been.


For the above reasons, the Panel finds that there has been RDNH in this case.


7. Decision


For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied and the Panel declares that it was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of this proceeding.'


The entire decision can be read here.


As you all know I know ZIP about SEO. I contend it is about relevance.


Do a Google search of my friend and watch what happens in the days ahead as HIJACKER is added to the Prefix of his name just like Dr. would be used. The FIRST thing folks will find out about this CLOWN is that World Intellectual Property Organization labled him a HIJACKER of domain names and all the scrubbing in the world won't make it go away:


http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Márcio+Mello+Chaves&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


As promised on the day this all started:


'Márcio Mello Chaves, Heitor Chaves and SaveMe.com.br.....You are going to be the poster boys that ends up protecting every dot com domain holder in the world from predators and lowlifes like you. SCUM! Márcio Mello Chaves, you and your brother just peed on the HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRIC FENCE! Me. But you and that third rate company you represent can't afford MY domain name. Dotcom is KING! I have owned SaveMe.com for 16 YEARS and you will not STEAL it from me or anyone. You and SaveMe.com.br are just being exposed as the predators you are. Maybe those tactics work for you sometimes, not here. Not ever again. Let's see what your own customers have to say when this goes viral. You opened this can of worms. DEAL WITH IT! Here is his Linkedin Page so if you get an email from him, run!'


And how does his Law Firm, Almeida Advogados, Brazil, continue to employ him after this? Shouldn't there at least be some admission of wrong doing?? An apology? An offer to pay my expenses? I won't hold my breath but we will see if they actually condone and encourage REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING by their actions. Courage or Coward? Almeida Advogados, Brazil you too have responsibilty and you too will pay dearly if you remain silent. Speak out now or NEVER!


Lastly, I want to thank the panel for a well thought out decision and for not being hoodwinked by the antics of the Chaves Brothers. It took time, courage and a willingness to look at the facts to make that comprehensive decision!


In this area I will be linking to other cases of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as WE find them:


SaveMe.com


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 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'.


All of these companies will be 'Recognized' at T.R.A.F.F.I.C. They are going to rue the day they decided to engage in hijacking. 1000x worse than being called a cybersquatter. The tables have been turned. Deal with it!


Buscape.com.br SaveMe.com.br (2012-2013) Poster Company for RDNH) represented by Marcio Chaves of Almeida Advogados, Brazil


Congrats Guys! You have all been tagged as HIJACKERS!! You will never rid yourselves of this title and it will follow these companies, people around for a very long time. This is the beginning of the end for this disgusting practice you PRICKS. Explin to your associates, clients, family memebers and neighbors. Blame YOURSELVES not ME!


And let's not forget the Goofoff.com case and these CLOWNS! and what they tied to pull.


Here are all related posts I have made on these DOMAIN NAME HIJACKERS. The first step in the next phase is to assemble EVERY case of RDNH and list them HERE!!


Post #1


Post #2


Post #3


Post #4


Post #5


Post #6


The reason this was such an important landmark win is because of the clarity of the facts. Had this decision gone the other way, we all know the very foundation of legitimate rights to domain names would have been threatened. The domain aftermarket would have been under a cloud. The entire capitalistic basis and foundation that every single domain owner has would have been in jeopardy and ripe for the predators. Now they have been warned of what will happen when you engage in this activity. It will have consequences you, your family, your colleagues will have to explain and deal with forever.


Have a GREAT Day!

Rick Schwartz


Translation:


Márcio Mello Chaves, Rotulado um seqüestrador NOME DE DOMÍNIO REVERSE no processo Saveme.com!




Gente da manhã!


Bem-vindo aos leitores SaveMe.com que agora estão chegando a este blog.


Eu escrevi isso em 02 de maio e já esperava que eu seria capaz de publicá-lo neste formulário. Eu tenho que ter 3 versões deste pronto para quando a decisão vem para baixo, mas eu nunca fui capaz de escrever fisicamente os outros 2. Isso poderia me fazer mal antes mesmo de começar. Se você estiver lendo esta versão, temos motivos para comemorar os meus amigos como Márcio Mello Chaves , Marcio aka Chaves de buscape.com.br e saveme.com.br e Heitor irmão ter sido rotulado como Seqüestradores de domínio reverso Nome (RDNH)! Uma tentativa de roubo por um abuso do sistema! Atuou em 'má-fé.'CULPADO! Se eles fizeram isso no mundo real, eles iriam provavelmente enfrentar um julgamento por acusações criminais. Isso não vai acontecer, mas a maioria de nós concordará que o que eles fizeram foi criminoso se reconhecido pela lei, neste momento ou não.


Márcio Mello Chaves, aka Chaves aka Márcio Marcio Chaves foi considerado culpado de nome de domínio Apropriação indébita e má-fé por um painel de pessoa unânime 3 da Organização Mundial da Propriedade Intelectual (OMPI) em Genebra, ele representou seu irmão Heitor Chaves e é agora o BOYS cartaz oficial para seqüestro de domínio e este tipo de roubo de domínio tentativa! Eu quero dizer isso literalmente. Eu vou estar tendo cartazes e faixas feitas com suas imagens e acender uma campanha mundial a partir de Qualquer TRAFFIC procurando esses palhaços se vai descobrir exatamente o que ele e seu irmão Heitor tentou fazer e ficou Spanked! CULPADO! PRÓXIMO!!


Hijacker Hijacker2
MARCIO CHAVES DE IRMÃO HEITOR CHAVES BUSCAPE.COM.BR considerado culpado de NOME DE DOMÍNIO Apropriação indébita. ELES Vista estes rótulos para o resto de suas vidas.




Sinta-se livre para exibir e distribuir e apontar para este caso quando você está sendo intimidado. Não tome essa merda de ninguém nunca mais! Grande ou pequeno.


Acredito que não só isto é uma grande vitória, mas é tão clara e decisiva de um caso de RDNH que já foi decidido. Nós começamos a apontar para este episódio para os próximos anos temos como lidar com predadores mais e mais tentar seqüestrar nossos ativos. Esta não será a última vez que ouvimos deste caso SaveMe.com particular. Este é um bloco de construção que será usada pelo me para proteger outros domínios, criando jurisprudência.


Espero que este caso é usado em outras defesas e se torna um ponto de viragem na forma como os povos abordar este tipo de situação. Essas pessoas são fraudes que tentaram um esquema que dobrado o espírito da UDRP e saiu pela culatra-los no curto e no longo prazo.Eles envenenaram o poço de negociações e, como se diz no velho oeste, 'o dinheiro não é bom por estas bandas.'


Eu acho que as pessoas estão começando a entender que estas decisons pode afetar todo o futuro das pessoas e os dias de decisões terríveis será cada vez menos a partir deste ponto.Eu acredito que haverá consequências para aqueles que ao longo alcance em todos os lados.Existe alguma definição que está agora a tornar-se visível. Sempre haverá decisões erradas, mas haverá menos delas e muitos agora vão para Tribunal Federal onde os padrões são bastante diferentes e todos os olhos estão vendo.


Você pode considerar este post e o único a vir como 'picos' de futebol na zona final. Eu não preciso jogar um cotovelo, eu só preciso lançar luz sobre essa prática e usar esses palhaços como o veículo para fazê-lo. Seqüestradores! Assim, encontra este painel mundo. Ladrões no sentido social que foi pego em flagrante para todos os seus clientes para ver. Em tinta para sempre! NUNCA se deve confiar de novo! Essa é a sua frase! A Internet é sobre 'Character' e Reputação 'e neste meio, eles destruíram tanto para si mesmos.


Hoje nós celebramos uma grande vitória. Amanhã vamos começar a usar o x 2 4 com pregos (metaforicamente falando) pela divulgação e circulação dessa história longe. Quero parabenizar e agradecer a meu parceiro Howard Neu e todos os outros advogados no espaço que enviaram e-mails e ofereceu seu apoio. Esta foi uma vitória enorme e eu não consigo colocar em palavras esta noite o que realmente significa. Eu só sei o que é uma perda teria significado e que teria sido um dia muito sombrio para todos. resposta de Howard foi magistral, corajoso e ganhamos BIG!


Desde que eu conheci Howard, em 1999, eu disse a ele deste caso. Eu não sabia qual o domínio seria, mas eu sabia do caso. Eu preparei por muitos anos. Já escrevi sobre isso há anos. Era só uma questão de tempo e assim foi. Então, esses caras trouxe uma faca para uma briga nuclear e felizmente ele chegou tarde o suficiente no jogo em que os painéis estão pesando as coisas de forma mais uniforme como muito está em jogo!


D. Domain Name Apropriação indébita

'Neste caso, o Painel está convencido de que representantes do queixoso estavam bem conscientes da importância da questão cronológica. Representantes do queixoso são, evidentemente, familiarizado com o UDRP e tanto a denúncia como Alterado Reclamação fazer referência extensiva às decisões UDRP anteriores. No entanto, o versão da Reclamação depositado originalmente simplesmente ignoraram a questão do registo de má-fé, marcando o terceiro fator como 'má-fé no uso de nomes de domínio'. Este deve ter envolvido a supressão da referência ao registo de má-fé a partir do modelo da OMPI queixa. Após o Centro chamou a atenção para essa deficiência, o Reclamante apresentou uma queixa alterada tardiamente que abordou a questão do registo de má fé e, pela primeira vez, invocou Octogen, aparentemente como uma reflexão tardia.


Além disso, o Reclamante, mesmo previsto na Reclamação Alterado que o Reclamado faria uma alegação de RDNH e assim o Reclamante claramente sabia que estava patinando no gelo muito fino.


O queixoso alegou que RDNH não pode surgir porque o Reclamante não tem cancelamento só procurou o nome de domínio disputado, não de transferência. O Painel discorda. Primeiro, os reclamantes não devem ser autorizados a apresentar casos conhecidos de ser fatalmente falho sem a possibilidade de um achado de RDNH contra eles, por meio do ajuste fino simplesmente o remédio procurado. Em segundo lugar, como mencionado acima, RDNH é definida como o uso da política de má-fé 'para tentar privar' O titular do nome de domínio.Se o Painel tinha ordenado o cancelamento, o nome de domínio disputado faria em troca devido ao pool de domínio onde ele iria, sem dúvida, sujeitas às atenções do Reclamante e outros, com apenas uma possibilidade que o Reclamado se pode finalmente voltar a registrá-lo (assumindo que o Reclamado procurou fazê-lo). Assim, o pedido do Reclamante para o cancelamento não é menos uma tentativa de privar o Reclamado do nome de domínio disputado do que um pedido de transferência teria sido.


Pelas razões acima expostas, o Painel concluir que houve RDNH neste caso.


7. Decisão


Por todas as razões expostas, a Reclamação é negado eo Painel declara que ele foi trazido de má-fé e constitui um abuso do presente processo. '


A decisão inteiro pode ser lido aqui.


Como todos sabem eu sei ZIP sobre SEO. Eu afirmo que é sobre a relevância.


Faça uma busca no Google do meu amigo e veja o que acontece nos próximos dias como Hijacker é adicionado ao prefixo de seu nome apenas como Dr. seriam utilizados. A PRIMEIRA coisa gente vai descobrir mais sobre este palhaço é que Organização Mundial da Propriedade Intelectual rotulado ele um seqüestrador de nomes de domínio e toda a lavagem do mundo não vai fazer isso ir embora:


http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Márcio+Mello+Chaves&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


Como prometido no dia tudo isso começou:


'Márcio Mello Chaves, Heitor Chaves e SaveMe.com.br ..... Vocês vão ser os garotos-propaganda que acaba protegendo cada ponto titular do domínio com no mundo dos predadores e delinquentes como você. SCUM! Márcio Mello Chaves , você e seu irmão só fez xixi em cima do muro de alta tensão! mim. Mas você e que a empresa de terceira categoria que representam não podem pagar meu nome de domínio. Dotcom é REI! eu possuí SaveMe.com há 16 anos e você não vai roubá-la de mim nem de ninguém. Você e SaveMe.com.br estão apenas sendo exposto como os predadores que são. Talvez essas táticas trabalhar para você às vezes não, aqui. Nem nunca mais. Vamos ver o que seus próprios clientes têm a dizer quando isso vai viral. Você abriu esta lata de vermes. negócio com ele! Aqui é a sua página Linkedin por isso, se você receber um e-mail dele, corra! '


E como é que seu escritório de advocacia, Almeida Advogados, Brazil, continuar a empregá-lo depois disso? Não deveria ser pelo menos alguns admissão de fazer errado? Um pedido de desculpas? Uma oferta para pagar minhas despesas? Eu não vou segurar minha respiração, mas vamos ver se eles realmente perdoar e incentivar NOME DE DOMÍNIO Apropriação indébita por suas ações. Coragem ou covarde? Almeida Advogados, Brazil você também tem responsibilty e você também vai pagar caro se você permanecer em silêncio. Fale agora ou nunca!


Por último, quero agradecer o painel para uma decisão bem pensada e para não ser enganado pelas palhaçadas dos Irmãos Chaves. Foi preciso coragem, tempo e disposição para olhar para os fatos para tomar essa decisão abrangente!


Nesta área eu vou estar ligando para outros casos de Nome de Domínio Apropriação indébita de como vamos encontrá-los:


Caso # 1 é o nosso amigo Scott Dia da Digimedia que ganhou um R $ 100 + julgamento contra GOFORIT Entertainment, LLC, que é um Hijacker NOME REVERSE DOMAIN.


Caso # 2 Rain.com Chuva Media LLC envolvidos no Domínio Apropriação indébita


Caso # 3 CinemaCity.com Prime Pictures um Hijacker Nome de Domínio Reverso


Caso # 4 CollectiveMedia.com Coletivo Media Inc. é um Hijacker Nome de Domínio Reverso


Caso # 5 Elk.com ELK Acessórios Pty Ltd. de Preston, Austrália é um Hijacker Nome de Domínio Reverso


Caso # 6 ForSale.ca Globo Media International Corporation é uma Hijacker Nome de Domínio Reverso


Caso # 7 Kiwi Mess.com sapatos Empresa polaca é um Hijacker Nome de Domínio Reverso


Caso # 8 Goldline.com Goldline International, Inc é um Hijacker Nome de Domínio Reverso


Caso # 9 K2R.com K2R (removedor de manchas) é um Hijacker Nome de Domínio Reverso


Caso # 10 CarSales.com Limitada carsales.com.au de Burwood, Victoria, Austrália é um Hijacker Nome de Domínio Reverso


Caso # 11 Proto.com Proto Software, Inc., New York, New York, Estados Unidos da América, representada por Byron Binkley é um Hijacker Nome de Domínio Reverso


Caso # 12 TrailBlazer.com Trailblazer Learning, Inc. representado por Brett K, Caledonia, Michigan é um Hijacker Nome de Domínio Reverso


Caso # 13 DreamGirls.com Dreamgirls, Inc., Tampa, Florida, representada por Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, de Los Angeles


Caso # 14 Mexico.com Consejo de Promoción Turística de México, SA representada por Bello, Guzmán, Morales Y Tsuru é um Hijacker Nome de Domínio Reverso


Caso # 15 Windsor.com Windsor Fashions, Inc., Los Angeles, Califórnia, representada por Abraham M. Rudy, esq. e Julie Waldman, esq., Weisman, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP, Beverly Hills,


Todas essas empresas será 'reconhecido' no tráfego que vão lamentar o dia em que decidiu se engajar em seqüestro. 1000x pior do que ser chamado de cybersquatter. As tabelas foram transformadas. Lidar com isso!


Buscape.com.br SaveMe.com.br (2012-2013) da Empresa Cartaz para RDNH) representado por Marcio Chaves de Almeida Advogados, Brazil


Rapazes Congrats! Você têm sido marcados como Hijackers! Você nunca irá livrar-se deste título e ele seguirá essas empresas, pessoas ao redor por um tempo muito longo. Este é o começo do fim para esta prática repugnante você aguilhões. Explin aos seus associados, clientes, memebers familiares e vizinhos. A culpa não vos ME!


E não vamos esquecer o caso Goofoff.com e estes palhaços! e que eles amarraram a puxar.


Aqui estão todos os posts relacionados que eu fiz sobre esses seqüestradores Nomes de Domínio. O primeiro passo para a próxima fase é reunir todos os casos de RDNH e listá-los aqui!


Mensagem # 1


Mensagem # 2


Mensagem # 3


Mensagem # 4


Mensagem # 5


Mensagem # 6


A razão que esta foi uma vitória como marco importante é por causa da clareza dos fatos. Se esta decisão foi o contrário, todos nós sabemos o fundamento dos direitos legítimos de nomes de domínio teria sido ameaçada. O pós-venda de domínio teria sido sob uma nuvem.Toda a base capitalista e fundação que cada proprietário tem domínio único teria sido em perigo e maduro para os predadores. Agora eles foram avisados ​​do que vai acontecer quando você se envolver nessa atividade. Terá conseqüências você, sua família, seus colegas terão de explicar e lidar com sempre.


Tenha um GRANDE dia!

Rick Schwartz

-----

Is Rick.TV on the Horizon? Got 98 Minutes to Waste? My Most In-Depth Interview Ever!

Morning Folks!!


The written word is still the most powerful medium after all these years. But sometimes the written word can be interprerted in different ways. Wrong ways. Sometimes the true meaning is either lost or not evident as the infliction may not come through. The reason I use caps. Those are the points I want to stress but it is harder on paper sometimes than in person. Have 98 minutes to waste?


This was my most in-depth interview ever. It covers quite a bit before the Internet and how it led me here. I have been considering replacing RicksBlog.com with Rick.tv next year. (Thanks J!) What do you think? Is there a difference between the meaning of the written word as opposed to the spoken word? I can only reach as many willing minds as I can. After that, just not my problem dude. But let's turn every stone and I would say this is the last stone to try and reach the unreachable. So if you have time to waste, or invest, depending on your mindset, here ya go. This is everything I have and has been well receieved. Thank you!


http://www.domainsherpa.com/rick-schwartz-domainking-interview/













Wistia





Transcript of Interview


Have a GREAT Day!

Rick Schwartz


Purchase of Punchbowl.com between Punchbowl Software Inc. and “Domain King” Rick Schwartz

Domain name Punchbowl.com sold by legendary “Domain King”


FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Purchase and acquisition transaction of Punchbowl.com
between Punchbowl Software Inc. and “Domain King” Rick Schwartz


Framingham, Mass., July 19, 2010 –Punchbowl Software, Inc. today announced the
acquisition of the web domain Punchbowl.com from legendary domainer Rick
Schwartz. Punchbowl Software Inc. develops web applications for start to finish
party planning. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.


With Punchbowl.com, the
company plans to re-launch the domain as a leading consumer site for party and
event planning. With new technology and a new look, the party planning site
will be ready to launch in time for the holiday season of 2010. At
Punchbowl.com, consumers will be able to plan a party from start to finish. The service will offer unique features including the innovative “Date Decider”
which enables users to find the best calendar date for their event, beautiful
Save the Dates and digital invitations, photo and video sharing after the event
and other services that will help consumers throw an unforgettable celebration.


“A punchbowl is the center
of any great party,” said Matt Douglas, CEO, Punchbowl Software. “The acquisition of Punchbowl.com will allow us reach new customers and expand our
growing customer base.”


Rick Schwartz, aka the “Domain
King,” is one of the early domain pioneers. Domains he has sold include
iReport.com to CNN for $750,000, Candy.com to G&J Holdings, LLC for $3
million plus dividends, and Men.com for $1.3 million back in 2004.


“During my domain career,
I’ve sought prime, recognizable domain names that were easy to spell, easy to
remember and could be developed into a major brand in their respective
industry” said Rick Schwartz. “I
was the first to see the intrinsic value in Punchbowl.com and knew that it
could be developed into a huge brand in the social expressions and celebrations
industry. I’m thrilled that Punchbowl Software will now develop the domain to
its full potential.”


The party planning industry
is ripe for a new entrant to provide a service for party hosts. Whether it’s a
mom planning a birthday party for her five year old daughter, a friend planning
a baby shower, a family planning their annual reunion, or the company Christmas
party, everyone has multiple reasons to plan a party every year. As the
industry moves from traditional offline sources to online, the market will
consolidate. A new brand will emerge – Punchbowl.com – that will define this
new industry.


Stay tuned for frequent
updates and milestones for the new Punchbowl.com. While you can visit the Web
site in its current appearance, the complete re-launch and re-branding will not
be official until sometime this fall.


“Working with Rick Schwartz
on this domain name acquisition has demonstrated to me that he’s not only a
visionary in the domain industry, but he’s a savvy businessman who understands
how to extract the most value from the Internet” said Matt Douglas, CEO,
Punchbowl Software. “I couldn’t be
happier to be the new owner of Punchbowl.com.”


About eRealEstate.com


Rick
Schwartz, aka “Domain King” and “Webfather,” is the CEO, President and
Cofounder of T.R.A.F.F.I.C. found at TargetedTraffic.com-- the premiere domain
conference for the domain industry. It is both the oldest and largest and
attracts over 500 of the top professionals in the industry in what was a by
invitation only event until 2009 and now open to all. As one of the early
domain pioneers dating back to 1995, Rick has a knack for predicting big trends
and getting it right. He may have been the first to recognize the value of
“type in” traffic which is now commonly referred to as “direct navigation” --
the most potent and targeted traffic on the net. Rick has a prime portfolio of some
7000 one and two word domains, and is considered by many to be among the
leading experts on domain names, traffic, Web site flow and valuation. www.eRealestate.com & www.RicksBlog.com


Media
Contact:

Matt
Douglas

Punchbowl
Software Inc.

info@punchbowlsoftware.com
650
814 3393


Mediocre traffic for a mediocre system

Morning folks!!


Transparency has emerged
as the key issue for 2008. T.R.A.F.F.I.C. tackled the problem in session after
session. Change won't come easy but it will come. A set of standards are now in
play and has wide support.


What does transparency
do? It educates. Education creates a bigger market with wider and deeper demand
because they have a clear understanding and that is something to build on. But
the way the system is set up, it rewards mediocre traffic while ignoring very
potent traffic and not filtering out the crappy traffic. So as long as you mix
those 3 groups together, the entire online advertising community is not capable
of taking advantage of this golden opportunity to steal market share from
traditional media. They are stuck with mediocre traffic no matter what. Blind
buying will choke online advertising. And I have yet to even mention a word about separating social traffic from commercial traffic which is a huge factor. Scratching your head? What am I talking
about?


Let's reverse things. Imagine
buying time on TV and not knowing if you are getting Super Bowl time or 3AM
bible music ads. IMAGINE how absolulutely INSANE that system would be!! How could you possibly build on that. There is no recipe. It's Russian Roulette. Well
welcome to OUR world of insanity. THAT is exactly what WE do on the online
advertising and why so much of the $$$ don't make it to the pockets of the
domain owners who supply that traffic and why the demand is not as high as it
could or should be for Google and Yahoo on top of the equation. That also suppresses
payouts because it is all about supply and demand and the demand has never been
what it should be because without knowing what you are getting it is impossible
to increase your buys for most businesses. It's basic stuff not rocket science. The result is easy to see when there is a flaw in the  construction.


I URGE folks to start
thinking about grading traffic. Having transparency. Having Google and Yahoo
and PPC providers cooperating because as I illustrated above, the current
system is insane. It makes little sense. It is world's better than impression
based advertising but it is not good enough to compete with traditional media
for the long term and actually get those dollars that can be won over sooner
rather than later.


We have mediocre traffic
for a mediocre system because we mix all the laundry together and have yet
to learn to separate the colors from the whites, from the stuff covered in
Sh*t. The space will never evolve to its full potential until things like this
are understood and addressed. Not all traffic is created equal. Not all TV ads
are created equal. Not all magazine ads are created equal. The blueprint is
already in place from traditional media. Some of that blueprint may be
obsolete, but much of that blueprint for magazine circulation and TV ratings is
waiting to be deployed in what we do. Buyers need to know the 'Source' of the traffic they are getting and the system should be transparent enough for them to see. So when we talk about 'Transparency', we are talking about it on many levels. Domainers have a responsibility. Monetizers  have a responsibility. Google and Yahoo and whoever shows up next, have a responsibility.


Have a GREAT day!
Rick Schwartz