• Buy & Sell your domain names commission free on Canada's most trusted domaining community.
    Get your own landing page with a custom website address dn.ca/market/user at: Market Pages

Registrant Kicks Butt in Buttkicker.com UDRP

MapleDots

Community Guide
Verified Member
Boardroom Access
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Topics
757
Posts
3,277
Likes
2,849
Market
23.jpg



A UDRP was filed against the Buttkicker.com domain name at the National Arbitration Forum, and the decision was published today. The sole panelist, Michael A. Albert, ruled in favor of the domain registrant and also decided this was an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The domain name will remain with the registrant.

The UDRP was filed by The Guitammer Company, which operates a business on TheButtkicker.com. The domain registrant and respondent in this UDRP is Herschel Thompson, and he was represented by Roberto Ledesma of Lewis & Lin, LLC.

There were two reasons why the domain registrant was able to defend its registration.

The first reason is the panel found that the respondent haw rights to the domain name because it bought the domain name for a “smoking cessation program.” Here’s an excerpt from the decision regarding the registrant’s rights and legitimate interests in the domain name:


Read more... https://domaininvesting.com/registrant-kicks-butt-in-buttkicker-com-udrp
 
  • Like
Reactions: FM

MapleDots

Community Guide
Verified Member
Boardroom Access
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Topics
757
Posts
3,277
Likes
2,849
Market
” 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
 

FM

WHC.ca
Service Rep.
Verified Member
Boardroom Access
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Topics
51
Posts
691
Likes
480
But but but... that wouldn't make any money for the UDRP providers :D First things first, a RDNH finding should automatically mean that all the costs are paid by the complainant.
 
Members who read this topic: 0
    Top Bottom