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: Smart Robotics, B.V. ( Netherlands )
Result: Smart Robotics, B.V. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Taylor Wessing N.V. represented Smart Robotics B.V., of the Netherlands, in its effort to take the domain smart-robotics.com from its owner. While the respondent never filed an answer to the complaint, a sole panelist of the World Intellectual Property Organization found Smart Robotics B.V. guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on September 17, 2021.
Read More...Client: Türkiye’nin Otomobili Girişim Grubu ( Gebze, Turkey )
Result: Türkiye’nin Otomobili Girişim Grubu found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Gün + Partners represented the Turkish automotive company, Türkiye’nin Otomobili Girişim Grubu (TOGG) in its effort to steal the domain togg.com from its owner, using a UDRP filing to effect a transfer. A single-member panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization handed up a ruling of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on September 1, 2021.
Read More...Client: GoSecure, Inc. ( San Diego, California, United States )
Result: GoSecure, Inc. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Andrew Skale, an attorney with the California law firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, reprented GoSecure, Inc. in its failed UDRP filing to take the domain gosecure.com from its owner. A three-member panel of the National Arbitration Forum found GoSecure, Inc. guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on August 19, 2021.
Read More...Client: College Fresh, Inc. ( Champaign, Illinois, United States )
Result: College Fresh, Inc. found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Meyer Capel, P.C. represented College Fresh, Inc. in its effort to use the UDRP process to take the domain collegefresh.com from its owner. A single-member panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization found College Fresh, Inc. guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on August 2, 2021.
Read More...Client: Savoia NYC Incorporated ( New York )
Result: Savoia NYC Incorporated found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Royer Cooper Cohen Braunfeld, LLC represented the company, Savoia NYC Incorporated, in its attempt to gain control of the domain cro-mags.com. The complaint was denied on March 11, 2021. Firm added March 29, 2021
Read More...