Take No Nonsense!

robbery-adobestock_77513837As I’ve written before, Andrew Allemann writes some fantastic articles on Domain Name Wire. He also has some great podcasts with notable players. Well worth a listen.

Whilst most of the above are “USA centric”, many of the issues / topics have relevance in some way to the Aussie domain space.

Of particular interest to me are his articles on UDRP decisions (dispute resolution over domain names). The policy we have in Australia is similar in many ways – we call ours auDRP.

His most recent article is about Nat Cohen’s Telepathy. If anyone tries to acquire one of Telepathy’s domain names by filing a UDRP, then Nat doesn’t muck around! Straight off to Court he goes – and he sues for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

An early example of this was on the domain name SDT.com. Andrew Allemann covered that story here. The Complainant ended up paying $50,000!

The latest attempt by a misguided complainant is on the domain name parametric.com. According to DNW, this looks like heading down a similar path. Telepathy has had the domain since 1998.

In my opinion, people or organizations that attempt to procure a legitimately registered domain name through unscrupulous actions deserve financial penalties when they lose. It’s akin to highway robbery. This way, it acts as a deterrent for those that don’t have a legitimate claim.

Ned O’Meara – 8th November 2016

4 thoughts on “Take No Nonsense!

  • Avatar
    November 8, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    Permalink

    Great post Ned.

    It is time for Australia to have a proper RDNH policy. As many know the Canada model seems to work well at a minimum.

    Why is auDA not doing their work to implement this asap? They have been aware of it for years and IP professional board members have even wrote a RDNH policy update is needed.

    http://www.domainer.com.au/audacira-australia-canada

    https://www.coopermills.com.au/reverse-domain-name-hijacking

    Maybe some lawyers in Australia can take up the specialisation and start suing the RDNH complainants here.

    These RDNH cases are worth everyone reading including auDA, Panalists, Policy makers, auDA board members and candidates http://www.rdnh.com

     

     

     

     

     

  • Avatar
    November 8, 2016 at 7:29 pm
    Permalink

    Who benefits from these cases besides lawyers? They are a waste of time and money for all involved. Perhaps the lawyer who is party to running a RDNH claim for a complainant should be fined in such actions.

    It is disappointing to see Australian’s keep featuring in the the list of Reverse Domain Name Highjackers.

    This case is shameful as another example!

    Patricks.com

    http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-0653

  • Avatar
    November 8, 2016 at 7:38 pm
    Permalink

    And another from Australia!

    http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DAU2015-0004

    WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

    Orient Express Travel Group Pty Ltd v. Mookstar Media Pty Ltd (ACN 083 167 293)Case No. DAU2015-0004 1. The Parties

    The Complainant is Orient Express Travel Group Pty Ltd of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, represented by Norgate McLean Dolphin, Australia.

    The Respondent is Mookstar Media Pty Ltd (ACN 083 167 293) of Glenside, South Australia, represented by Cooper Mills Lawyers, Australia.

    “For all of these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Complainant was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.”

  • Avatar
    November 9, 2016 at 8:15 am
    Permalink

    I would back a system which imposed a financial penalty for parties found guilty of RDNH.  Compensation for the respondent’s costs could form part of that.

Comments are closed.