NameStarter.com :: domaining business blog // Domaining for Domainers

Archive for the ‘rdnh’ Category

Nat Cohen wins reverse domain name hijacking charge against spa for SHA.com

August 3, 2012Domaining, Domainnamewire, nat cohen, Policy & Law, rdnh, reverse domain name hijacking, telepathy, udrpComments Off on Nat Cohen wins reverse domain name hijacking charge against spa for SHA.com

Spanish spa and wellness center brought UDRP in bad faith.

Nat Cohen’s Telepathy has successfully defended the domain name Sha.com from an attack by Albir Hills Resort, S.A., known as SHA Wellness Clinic.

The panel also determined that SHA Wellness Clinic was guilty of attempting reverse domain name hijacking.

I’ve got to say, this was a no brainer for the three person panel.

First, SHA’s attorney said the resort had been “operating in the market for 15 years”. But the evidence showed otherwise, at least for the SHA Wellness Clinic. In fact:

The Complainant states that, after the creation of the SHA Wellness Clinic, the Complainant noticed that the disputed domain name sha.com was already registered; the Complainant thus attempted to purchase it from the Respondent, but, since the Respondent had requested an “exaggerated offer”, the Complainant opted for filing this Complaint.

That’s a good way of admitting that the domain was registered before you were in business.

SHA’s lawyer even said that the company tried to negotiate for the domain name, but since the price of the domain was high it opted to file the dispute.

I also appreciate this line from SHA’s attorney:

“the fact that the [Respondent’s] use is not real produces an obstruction act for my client, because the obvious and logical owner of the domain name is the owner of SHA. That, and furthermore the fact that there are no trademarks “SHA” owned by the respondent, implies a decrease of the reputation of my client’s trademarks”.

The “obvious and logical owner”??

If you’re wondering why Telepathy gets hit with so many UDRPs for three letter .com domains, it’s because it owns more than 1,000 of them.

Hopefully attorneys for other companies thinking about stealing three letter .com domains from Telepathy will do some research and figure out they’re wasting their money.


© DomainNameWire.com 2011.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

No related posts.

Frank Schilling and John Berryhill team up to get RDNH decision

December 8, 2011Domaining, Domainnamewire, Frank Schilling, John Berryhill, Policy & Law, rdnh, reverse domain name hijackingComments Off on Frank Schilling and John Berryhill team up to get RDNH decision

Company files dispute for UDRP in bad faith.

Frank Schilling, with the help of attorney John Berryhill, has convinced a UDRP panel that AINS, INC is guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a dispute over eCase.com.

AINS, Inc has a trademark for “ecase” for its software for workflow and case management. It claimed a first use in commerce date of 2009 on its trademark application.

Schilling acquired the domain name eCase.com in 2002, so the case had no chance of succeeding.

So AINS’ attorney Janice W. Housey of Symbus Law Group, LLC claimed that each time the domain was renewed the domain was a “renewal in bad faith”. It’s ridiculous, but she made another mistake that made it even more troublesome: she neglected to show that the domain was renewed after AINS got its trademark rights.

Making matters worse, it appears that an employee of AINS sent a misleading communication to Schilling in an effort to buy the domain. According to the case, AINS’ Director of Business Development and Vice President of Sales sent an inquiry that read:

“Due to today’s economy, I am starting a home business. I am interested in your domain name as it is a good fit for services I want to provide, and am able to propose $1,500 for the rights to the name. I can be reached via my home email . . .”

Berryhill noted that this is “a willfully false communication by interstate or international electronic means originating in the United States, for the purpose of obtaining a thing of value on false pretenses, i.e. “wire fraud” under the relevant federal criminal statute:18 USC § 1343.”.

It didn’t help that the attorney also sent a couple inquiries to Schilling’s company without identifying herself.

The three person panel found against AINS and that AINS was guilty of filing its case under the policy in bad faith, i.e. reverse domain name hijacking.


© DomainNameWire.com 2011.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

Related posts:

  1. Schilling and Berryhill Win Another UDRP
  2. Frank Schilling Wins Another UDRP
  3. Frank Schilling Loses His First UDRP