The job of the attorney is not to be part of a hijacking and actually Aid and Abet. It's the job of the attorney to educate their client or fire their client. Explain the self inflicted damage that can be done to them, their company, their brand, you as an attorney and the firm you work for. HallofShame will now begin to list you as the attorney and the firm you represent. It will be a stain you cannot remove and it will be all self inflicted because you knew better!
Aid and Abet? 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 given what we know now. You have been hired as a contract hit man so to speak 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 when your real job is to protect him. The moment you go along with that scheme, you are just as guilty because you know what you are doing. It is premeditated. You are just as guilty aren't you Mr. Attorney?? If not, why not? I have read the decisons and the panels have been brutal when they get lied to. When lawyers and their clients fabricate accusations and get caught doing it!
Wrong minded? Outrageous? Over the top? ok fine. I may be guilty of bad taste. How does that measure up against being found guilty of Reverse Hijacking a domain name by the govering panel? Worth the gamble of ending up here at HallofShame.com and then what? Blame me? Threaten ME!?
All I am suggesting is you better be on solid ground when you hit somebody with a WIPO or NAF action. 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 are found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Client: Wakefit Innovations Party Limited ( India )
Result: Wakefit Innovations Party Limited found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Wadhwa Law Chambers represented Wakefit Innovations Private Limited, an India-based mattress company, in its effort to steal the domains wakefit.com and wake.fit. The ownership of the .com domain predates the company’s existence by about seven years. A single member panelist at the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking […]
Read More...Client: Snapchat ( California, United States )
Result: Snapchat found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, a California-based law firm, represented the social media company Snapchat in its failed UDRP bid to transfer a pair of domains, snapchatplanets.org and snapchatplanets.net. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Snapchat on November 30, 2024.
Read More...Client: Printfly Corporation ( Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States )
Result: Printfly Corporation found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Attorney Sophie Edbrooke, from the Washington, D.C. law firm of Gerben Perrott, PLLC, represented Printfly Corporation in its effort to steal a pair of domains from their owner, and for attempting to use the UDRP process to do so. A single-member panel of the National Arbitration Forum found Printfly guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking […]
Read More...Client: Instakart Service Private Limited ( India )
Result: Instakart Service Private Limited found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas represented Instakart Services Private Limited, from India, and unrelated to the U.S.-based Instacart, in its effort to use the UDRP process to force a transfer of the domain ekart.com. A single-member panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on November 7, 2024.
Read More...Client: Arthus Bertrand, A. Augis ( Paris, France )
Result: Arthus Bertrand, A. Augis found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Cabinet Herrburger represented Arthus Bertrand and is subsidiary, A. Augis, in an attempt to force the transfer of the domain augis.com away from its current registrant. A single-member panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization found Arthus Bertrand guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on November 7, 2024.
Read More...