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: Rocket Lab USA ( Long Beach, California, USA )
Result: Rocket Lab USA found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Ronald H. Spuhler, of McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd., based in Chicago, Illinois, represented Rocket Lab USA in its effort to steal the domain rocketlab.com from its current owner. A three-member panel of the National Arbitration Forum handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Rocket Lab USA on June 5, 2023.
Read More...Client: Markel Corporation ( Richmond, Virginia, United States )
Result: Markel Corporation found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Anna King was house counsel for Markel Corporation, representing the company in a UDRP dispute for the domain markelgroup.com. A single-member panel of the National Arbitration Forum handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against the company on May 23, 2023.
Read More...Client: Presonate Zrt. ( Budapest, Hungary )
Result: Presonate Zrt. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Hungarian law firm, Széles Law Office, represented the Presonate Zrt. of Budapest in its effort to acquire the domain presonate.com using the UDRP process. A single-member panel at the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Presonate Zrt. on May 5, 2023.
Read More...Client: DNVB, Inc. d/b/a Thursday Boot Company ( New York )
Result: DNVB, Inc. d/b/a Thursday Boot Company found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The law firm of Beard & Parks PLLC, based in Houston, Texas, represented DNVB, Inc., which does business as Thursday Boot Company, in a UDRP filing to steal the domain name thursday.com from its current owner. DNVB was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking by the World Intellectual Property Organization on May 3, 2023.
Read More...Client: WebSec Holdings, B.V. ( Netherlands )
Result: WebSec Holdings, B.V. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The firm of Solace Law, based in Los Angeles, represented the Dutch cybersecurity company WebSec Holdings, B.V. in its effort to hijack the domain websec.com using the UDRP process. A three-member panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization found WebSec guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on May 1, 2023.
Read More...