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: Viking Exchange & Marketing Inc. ( San Diego, California, United States )
Result: Viking Exchange & Marketing Inc. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Attorney Tao Tran represented the adult-entertainment company Viking Exchange & Marketing Inc. in its attempt to use the UDRP process to steal the domain voyeur-house.tv from its current registrant, which is also a competing company. A single-member panel of the National Arbitration Forum handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Viking on […]
Read More...Client: Scoop Solders Services Company, LLC ( Dallas, Texas, United States )
Result: Scoop Solders Services Company, LLC found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Anthony Davis, with the New Jesey law firm of Santomassimo Davis, LLP d/b/a OGC Solutions, represented Scoop Soldiers Services Company, LLC in its failed UDRP bid to acquire the domain scoopsoldier.com from its current registrant. A single-member panel of the National Arbitration Forum handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Scoop Soldiers […]
Read More...Client: Polydec SA ( Switzerland )
Result: Polydec SA found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Infosuisse is a Swiss law firm that represented the company Polydec SA in its attempt to use a UDRP filing to acquire the domain polydec.com. The domain has been registered since 1998, and it was acquired by its current registrant in 2013, as part of a cross-border corporate merger. A single-member panel of the World […]
Read More...Client: Seed of Life Center for Early Learning and Preschool, Inc. ( Seattle, Washington, USA )
Result: Seed of Life Center for Early Learning and Preschool, Inc. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
K&L Gates, LLP, based in Miami, represented the Seattle-based childcare company, Seed of Life Center for Early Learning and Preschool, Inc., in its effort to use the UDRP process to acquire the domain seedsoflifechildcare.com from its current owner, a Brooklyn-based child care company by the name of Seeds of Life Child Care LLC. The panelist […]
Read More...Client: 1141931 Ontario Inc., dba INKAS Group of Companies ( Toronto, Ontario, Canada )
Result: 1141931 Ontario Inc., dba INKAS Group of Companies found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
David Khazanski, an attorney based in Canada, represented 1141931 Ontario Inc., d/b/a INKAS Group of Companies in its failed UDRP filing to force the transfer of inkasarmor.com and inkas-group.com. Both are currently owned by a former business partner of the Canada-based firm. A three-member panel at the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling […]
Read More...