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: Cappuccine Specialties, Inc. ( Corona, California, United States )
Result: Cappuccine Specialties, Inc. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The European law firm of Novagraaf France represented the California-based beverage company, Cappuccine Specialties, Inc., in its UDRP action to force the transfer of the domain cappuccine.com. A three-member panel at the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Cappuccine Specialties on October 17, 2023.
Read More...Client: Cathleen Trigg-Jones ( New York, New York, United States )
Result: Cathleen Trigg-Jones found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Vanel Law Firm, P.C. represented social media entrepreneur and influencer Cathleen Trigg-Jones in her effort to steal the domain iwoman.com, to complement Trigg-Jones’ iWomanTV. However, Trigg-Jones’ trademark for the term was issued more than 22 years after the domain, itself, was initially registered, and a decade prior to the domain’s acquisition by its current […]
Read More...Client: Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. ( Miami, Florida, United States )
Result: Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The law firm of Sanchez Fischer Levine, LLP represented Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. in its failed UDRP case, in which the cruise company attempted to steal the domain starofthesea.com. A three-member panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Royal Caribbean on September 22, 2023.
Read More...Client: Kvasir Technologies AsP ( Denmark )
Result: Kvasir Technologies AsP found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Chas. Hude A/S represented the Danish biofuels company Kvasir Technologies in its failed UDRP complaint to force a transfer of the domain kvasir.com. A single-member panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization found Kvasir Technologies guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on September 1, 2023.
Read More...Client: Stable App LLC ( Bogata, Columbia )
Result: Stable App LLC found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Columbian law firm of Abello Abogados represented Stable App LLC, the associate company of a Bogata-based firm, Ark House, S.A.S., in a UDRP filing in which Stable App attempted to grab the domain stable.com from its current registrant. A single-member panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain […]
Read More...