1

Topic: Tucows RDNH win against Australian Firm

"Tucows gets Reverse Domain Name Hijacking win against Australian Firm"

Link to the story: https://domainnamewire.com/2021/06/07/t … lian-firm/

Further below is a link to the actual decision, and here's an excerpt where they cover the RDNH aspect:

In the present matter, the Panel finds that the Complainant should have known at the time that it filed the Complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required, as it is clear that the Respondent registered the Domain Name before the Complainant filed and registered the Trademark.

Furthermore, the Panel also finds that the Complainant (or rather, its professional representative) has either been extremely careless, or has tried to mislead the Panel by 1) suggesting that the Domain Name was not being used at all, 2) not disclosing accurately the status of the United States trademark application and 3) not disclosing that the Complainant sought to purchase the Domain Name rather than the Respondent offering the Domain Name for out-of-pocket expenses.

Decision: https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/damstra.pdf

2 (edited by: MapleDots Jun 08, 2021 12:13 pm)

Re: Tucows RDNH win against Australian Firm

Question here...

With Tucows being a registrar how does the domain lock once it is in dispute?
Do they take Tucows word for it or does it temporarily have to be transferred to a different neutral registrar?

If not, maybe it is a legitimate question that needs to be addressed.
For the rest of us the domain in dispute automatically locks until the dispute is resolved.

Is there a double standard there?


@FM or @GeorgeK might be able to answer this one.

For me, I am just curious and it got me wondering.

3

Re: Tucows RDNH win against Australian Firm

The lock doesn't prevent the domain from being used, so I would believe that Tucows follows the process, no matter if it is their domain or not, otherwise, they would be risking their accreditation.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/u … 5-03-11-en

The provider = dispute arbitration company

a) The Provider shall submit a verification request to the Registrar. The verification request will include a request to Lock the domain name.

(b) Within two (2) business days of receiving the Provider's verification request, the Registrar shall provide the information requested in the verification request and confirm that a Lock of the domain name has been applied. The Registrar shall not notify the Respondent of the proceeding until the Lock status has been applied. The Lock shall remain in place through the remaining Pendency of the UDRP proceeding. Any updates to the Respondent's data, such as through the result of a request by a privacy or proxy provider to reveal the underlying customer data, must be made before the two (2) business day period concludes or before the Registrar verifies the information requested and confirms the Lock to the UDRP Provider, whichever occurs first. Any modification(s) of the Respondent's data following the two (2) business day period may be addressed by the Panel in its decision.

Domains Product Manager @WHC
(514) 504-2113 x7209

4

Re: Tucows RDNH win against Australian Firm

CIRA has rules against a registrar warehousing domains for profit, See section 5.1 (p)

https://www.cira.ca/policy/legal-agreem … -agreement

However, I think we all highly suspect that this rule is routinely broken, and probably difficult to enforce.  I wouldn't even be surprised if CIRA employees themselves invested in domain names.  CIRA seems to have no boundaries when it comes to their will to find new ways to profit from their .CA monopoly.  I once questioned CIRA about a suspicious registrar, only to be told that "its none of your business who they are or what they're doing."  Obviously that made me feel even more suspicious of CIRA.

Clearly ICANN doesn't have any similar rules with the largest registrars buying up domain portfolio after domain portfolio. 

@FM, do you know of any other TLDs have rules like 5.1 (p) ?

5

Re: Tucows RDNH win against Australian Firm

rlm wrote:

@FM, do you know of any other TLDs have rules like 5.1 (p) ?

Good question. ICANN actually has a relevant provision in their registrar accreditation agreement, but it is currently without teeth:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/a … 3-09-17-en

3.7.9 Registrar shall abide by any Consensus Policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.

However, so far, no such consensus policy has been adapted or discussed.

Most of the ccTLDs don't have their terms and conditions public, but I am quite sure some of them have policies that would address warehousing.

Domains Product Manager @WHC
(514) 504-2113 x7209

6

Re: Tucows RDNH win against Australian Firm

Very interesting, but not surprising.  I don't really follow ICANN very closely, but based on their actions over the past 2 decades, I've always felt that board members act like they're bought and paid for, and it constantly feels like there is some conflict of interest going on.  So I'm guessing they're probably well motivated to continue and let that issue of warehousing/speculation to slide. Its as blatant as blatant can be with GoDaddy publicly spending hundreds of millions buying up portfolios.