Below is our current list of those inducted into the Hall of Shame or found guilty of trying to Reverse Hijack a Domain Name in which they had no legal rights. In other words they tried to bully the rightful owners into relinquishing their property and forcing these innocent parties to spend thousands to defend what they already own. Since there is no Legal Penalty, we are determined to Shame these companies along with their attorneys that represent them. What can you do? Tweet, Like, Circulate! Help me, Help you!
Case Number: Case #33
Represented by: Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone
Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking: “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive […]
Read More...Case Number: Case #32
Represented by: Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America
xPand.com – The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. “The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint […]
Read More...Case Number: Case #31
Represented by: Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota
3dCafe.com – Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds “Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.”
Read More...Case Number: Case #30
Represented by: Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL.
Swash.com – Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker. “It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, “swash.com”, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the […]
Read More...Case Number: Case #29
Represented by: Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota
SFM.com – Complainant is State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. represented by Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota, USA The Panel finds “Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.”
Read More...My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to write about and circulate. The reality is I will write every company and their representation every single time there is a case of RDNH. To fight back we had to create HallofShame.com to get the message across to Main Street and Main Stream. Now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table in good faith instead of being labeled forever on Hall of Shame. The net is written in ink! And now a monument has been built at a common crossroads that many more folks will see. Just like being in Times Square.
