|
UDRP Panel Issues Catch-22 Ruling On Reverse Domain Hi-Jacking
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 19 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
The arbitrator is wrong. It should consider reverse domain name hijacking and opine accordingly.
With that said, however, the rule regarding RDNH is lame. The only remedy the UDRP allows is domain name transfer. The respondent can never win damages or other relief. Accordingly, attempted RDNH is irrelevant. The only relevent factor is the respondent's bad faith. Sad but true.
The arbitrator in this case recognizes that fact, and decided to unilaterally re-write the UDRP rule. The arbitrator is wrong. But, so is the UDRP.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
You talk about sqautters ignorning law. However, UDRP arbitrators, more often than not, ignore law. Now, the panels are citing other arbitration cases, like they are law.
Domain name disputes belong in the court, where they are subject to the due process and real law.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
|
Now that's a poster kid to use against the UDRP. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
ICANN must stop all this nonsense in the name of the UDRP at WIPO and NAF - if they don't WE WILL!
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
| 2 replies beneath your current threshold. |
