Registrant Kicks Butt in Buttkicker.com UDRP (1.Viewing)
- Topic Starter MapleDots
- Start date
- Replies: Replies 2
- Views: Views 873
” In the section about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, the panel notes that the respondent owned the domain name before the complainant’s trademark ”
Instead of making the domainer go through all this useless crap (time & expense) the UDRP should not even be accepted when this is the case. Why would you force a domain owner into litigation of any sort when this is the case. It should be an automatic NO YOU CANNOT FILE when you have someone that owned a domain before the trademark existed.
Seems like the rules should be pretty clear here and it should get thrown out the second the UDRP is filed with no action needed by the domain owner.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I mentioned the above to Elliot in his comment section
Instead of making the domainer go through all this useless crap (time & expense) the UDRP should not even be accepted when this is the case. Why would you force a domain owner into litigation of any sort when this is the case. It should be an automatic NO YOU CANNOT FILE when you have someone that owned a domain before the trademark existed.
Seems like the rules should be pretty clear here and it should get thrown out the second the UDRP is filed with no action needed by the domain owner.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I mentioned the above to Elliot in his comment section
But but but... that wouldn't make any money for the UDRP providers 
First things first, a RDNH finding should automatically mean that all the costs are paid by the complainant.
First things first, a RDNH finding should automatically mean that all the costs are paid by the complainant.Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |