Afternoon Folks
And another decision Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision!! Croma.com
Hall of Shame got TWO new members this month and they will be updated next week!
And the sole panelist scolded the "Expert attorney" for allowing this action to be brought to begin with.
"UDRP panels have long accepted that the third element of the Policy has a conjunctive requirement and that both registration and use in bad faith must be found for a claim to succeed under the third element. The Panel finds it difficult to believe that the Complainant, who is represented by expert counsel, was not advised accordingly"
Infiniti Retail Limited of Mumbai, India, (a Tata company) represented by Anand & Anand, India (Nice building guys. What responsibility do you think you have in this given the langauge used above. "expert counsel". Really? So either you guys are just as guilty as your clients, incompetent or you lost control? Wouldn't you agree it would have to be one of those? If not, why not? What say you?) I think my case trumps your case and I am just a guy with no training. But I have seen enough attorneys that are either clueless, incompetent or not in control or involved in the hijacking.
Here is the Revere Domain Name Hijacker's online store.
Congrats guys!! Nice going! Pretty big slap to Anand & Anand, India. They have to live with this STAIN as well. And for them it could be very costly.
So if you are an attorney, don't be stupid and don't allow your client to soil and damage YOUR firm and YOUR reputation. Who is the biggest loser here Mr. Attorney? Me thinks it is you pal!
"The Panel finds that the Complaint was an unnecessary imposition upon the Respondent and an abuse of the Policy. There is moreover no evidence before the Panel that the Complainant ever previously communicated with the Respondent, whether concerning an alleged infringement of its rights, or with regard to commercial acquisition of the disputed domain name. It appears to the Panel that the Complaint was simply brought in an attempt to obtain a domain name that the Complainant decided after the fact it would like to own for its own business purposes. In these circumstances the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Complaint amounts to an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking."
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2013-1360
More about this case from ME is here. We given them a little lesson!
Rick Schwartz
Justin
This tata group is the same one as embroiled in another attempt, which though granted by UDRP is still in litigation in a court. That case pertains to oktatabyebye.com – a travel blog run by makemytrip.com. Readers of this blog – if you don’t know already, please look up that story in the web – makes very interesting reading. There are some Indian companies (well most actually) who don’t give a d..n to intellectual property and will use all their might (and money) to twist or bend rules rather than pay up for IP.