The Rick Schwartz Domain Name and Traffic Blog: RicksBlog.com – Home of The Domain King®

Afternoon Folks!!

In the highest profile Reverse Domain Name Hijacking case in History, DomainNameWire is reporting that Procter and Gamble has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name hijacking Swash.com! They join the list below that will be displayed each and every time one of these cases comes out.

Procter and Gamble and their Attorney got their asses WHOPPED as you will read in RED below direct from the panel in what is on of THE single most stinging decisions I have ever read.

Here is the panels SPANKING of Procter and Gamble and their Attorney!

The Complainant and its legal counsel are not strangers to the UDRP process. See, P&G Prestige Products, Inc. v. Ryogo Sugai, WIPO Case No. D2009-1098; The Procter & Gamble Company v. Richard Jones, NAF Claim No. 1266787; The Procter & Gamble Company v. William Vaughan, River Cruise Investments Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-1164; The Procter & Gamble Company, P&G Hair Care, LLC v. Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2007-1040; Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Johnny Carpela, NAF Claim No. 625591; The Procter & Gamble Company v. Hong Gil Dong, NAF Claim No. 572962; et cetera. Therefore, the Panel (by a majority) concludes that the Complainant must have known that, once the relevant facts of this case were uncovered, a UDRP panel could not possibly find that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. To have filed the Complaint at this relatively late date – more than eleven years after the registration of the disputed domain name and several years after its acquisition by the Respondent –seems a grotesquely unfair attempt to wrest ownership of the disputed domain name from the owner. See, Proto Software, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc/PROTO.COM, WIPO Case No. D2006-0905 (“The Panel considers that the Complainant is represented by Counsel who even on a rudimentary examination of the Policy and its application in this area should have appreciated that the Complaint could not succeed where the Respondent’s domain name had been registered three years prior to filing a trademark application or actual use of the mark.”); and carsales.com.au Limited v. Alton L. Flanders, WIPO Case No. D2004-0047 (“In the Panel’s view a finding of reverse domain name hijacking is warranted if the Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the Policy.”)

I have 29 30 34 such cases so far and each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them.

And a special tip of the hat to John Berryhill who is the leading RDNH attorney in the world. I am counting and will post how many wins he has recorded on behalf of his clients.

SaveMe.com The Grand daddy of RDNH. Here is my post on this very big win against Márcio Mello Chaves, aka Márcio Chaves aka Marcio Chaves.

The Complainant is G.W.H.C. - Serviços Online Ltda., E-Commerce Media Group Informação e Tecnologia Ltda. of Sao Paulo, Brazil, represented by Almeida Advogados, Brazil. Found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Case #1 is our Friend Scott Day of Digimedia who won a $100k+ judgment against GOFORIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC who IS a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER.

Case #2 Rain.com Media Rain LLC engaged in Reverse Domain Hijacking

Case #3 CinemaCity.com The Complainant is Prime Pictures LLC of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”). Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #4 CollectiveMedia.com The Complainant is Collective Media, Inc., New York, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #5 Elk.com The Complainant is ELK Accesories Pty Ltd. of Preston, Australia represented by Pointon Partners, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #6 ForSale.ca Globe Media International Corporation is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #7 Mess.com Kiwi Shoe Polish Company, The Complainant is Mess Enterprises, San Francisco, California, of United States of America, represented by Steve Clinton, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #8 Goldline.com The Complainant is Goldline International, Inc., represented by Spataro & Associates is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #9 K2R.com The complainant is a Swiss company, K2r Produkte AG of Haggenstrasse45, CH 9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #10 CarSales.com The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #11 Proto.com The Complainant is Proto Software, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Byron Binkley, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #12 TrailBlazer.com Trailblazer Learning, Inc. represented by COO Brett W, Caledonia, Michigan is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #13 DreamGirls.com The Complainant is Dreamgirls, Inc., Tampa, Florida, United States of America, represented by Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Los Angeles, California, United States of America and have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.

Case #14 Mexico.com The Complainant is Consejo de Promoción Turística de México, S.A. de C.V., Colonia Anzures, Mexico, represented by Bello, Guzmán, Morales Y Tsuru, S.C., Mexico is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #15 Windsor.com Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Windsor Fashions, Inc., a California corporation with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Complainant is represented in this proceeding by Abraham M. Rudy, Esq. and Julie Waldman, Esq., Weisman, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP, Beverly Hills, California, United States of America. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.

Case #16 Mindo.com Complainants are Scandinavian Leadership AB and Mindo AB of Uppsala, Sweden, internally represented. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.

Case # 17 and Sha.com he Complainant is Albir Hills Resort, S.A. of Alfaz del Pi Alicante, Spain, represented by PADIMA, Abogados y Agentes de Propiedad Industrial, S.L., Spain. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.

Case # 18 etatil.com The Complainants are ÖZALTUN OTELCİLİK TURİZM VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. of Istanbul, Turkey, Allstar Hotels LLC of New York, Unites States of America and Mr. Metin ALTUN of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.

Case # 19 Takeout.com. Complainant is Tarheel Take-Out, LLC of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented internally. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.

Case # 20 WallStreet.com The Complainant is Wall-Street.com, LLC of Florida, United States of America (the “United States” or “US”), represented by Flint IP Law, United States. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.

Case # 21 parvi.org found for the complainant in 2009 but in 2012 the courts rules that theCity of Paris, France was guilty of 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking' in a landmark case that resulted in a $125,000 judgement against the city.

Case #22 Gtms.com The Complainant is Sustainable Forestry Management Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant is represented by its general counsel, Mr. Eric Bettelheim. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.

Case #23 PetExpress.com The Complaintant is Airpet Animal Transport, Inc. represented by Mark W. Good of Terra Law LLP, California, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'

Case #24 ColdFront.com Complainant is Personally Cool Inc. (“Complainant”), New York, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'

Case #25 Unive.com Complainant is Coöperatie Univé U.A. of Arnhem, Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands. 'Given the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding'

Case #26 eCase.com AINS, INC. (“Complainant”), represented by Janice W. Housey of Symbus Law Group, LLC, Virginia, USA. The panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #27 TinyPrint.com Complainant is Tiny Prints, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA 'Complaint was brought in bad faith and that, accordingly, Complainant has attempted to engage in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'

Case #28 Enki.com Complainant is Enki LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Eric A. Novikoff, of California, USA. 'This is a frivolous proceeding which should never have been filed by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant is guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'

Case #29 SFM.com Complainant is State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. represented by Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota, USA The Panel finds 'Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'

Case #30 Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

'It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, <swash.com>, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the Complainant introduced its SWASH product line in 2009.

The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled underUSD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.

In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'

Case #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds 'Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.'

Case #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. 'The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'

Case #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”

The general conditions for a finding of bad faith on the part of a complainant are well stated in Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes, WIPO Case No. D2000-0993 (October 18, 2000):

“Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.”

These conditions are confirmed in Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line, WIPO Case No. D2000-1151 (January 4, 2001) and Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-1224 (October 31, 2000) (where the condition is stated as “the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge”), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. Plan Express, WIPO Case No. D2000-0565 (July 17, 2000).

The Complainant knew when it filed the Complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name preceded by several years any rights that the Complainant may have acquired in the mark WEB PASS. Indeed, the Complainant annexes a printout of the WhoIs registration to the Complaint, and that printout indicates that the domain name was created well before the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its mark. In this Panel’s view, this is sufficient to find reverse domain name hijacking. See NetDeposit, Inc. v. NetDeposit.com, WIPO Case No.D2003-0365 (July 22, 2003) (finding reverse domain name hijacking because “Respondent's domain name registration preceded the Complainant's creation of its trademark rights”).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.

The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name. It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP. It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.

See NetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (“To establish reverse domain name hijacking, Respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the Complainant in the fact of such knowledge.”); see also Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Glisson, FA 250232 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2004) (finding that complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking where it used “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).

Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. The Panel further finds that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'

My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to post. The reality is this post will be re-posted EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a case of RDNH. Every time and now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table un good faith instead of being labeled forever with bad faith. The net is written in INK!

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL! Stop trying to steal and start doing BUSINESS! Feel free to repost FAR and WIDE!

Rick Schwartz

Morning Folks!!

Why is the future so much different than the past? Because in the past you have been dependent on others instead of independent. That changes in the new era that is approaching. YOU are now driving and you are no longer a passenger in a bus you have no control over.

We have watched massive portfolios come and go. We have watched the game change so sharply that those that played a certain way just got washed away. They left no notes. Did not say Good-bye. No big press releases. Just gone. The rest of us survived multiple tsunamis as far as business goes. But we also changed our game. My portfolio swelled to 10,000 from 6000 and now after 2 years of 'Culling' the inventory, am back to 6000. But I will hopefully get it to 5000.

Some domains are perishable. Some never materialize. Some were a good idea at the time. Some you don't even know what you were thinking. But as we move forward it has become pretty clear where domains of value are and what elements they contain. The ones outside that realm should be dropped and the reason is this. Those 4000 domains were 75% non .com. The .xxx was $99 each. The .co was $25 each etc. So lets say the average is $20/year. That's $80,000 or $800,000 over the next 10 years. I am sure I can find a deal that will take that $800,000 I would have pissed away on pigeon shit in exchange for a top tier domain name. I am sure I can make a deal on a GREAT domain for a few grand a month for the next 10 years.

That's what you call turning a loser into a winner. One little pivot like that could save your empire and then ignite your empire.

It takes 20 years to go through the evolution we are a part of. The first part was a unique opportunity in time when you gathered your properties. Then we spent a period of time learning about these domains as well as this new medium. Thirdly we had to watch and see how things would unfold and develop. That process takes 20 years for the first phase and another 20 years of refinement and expansion. If you know that going into the game, you take a deep breath and play it the way you see it. I see it as a lifetime marathon that will live beyond me. That's why I don't get tempted to make a sale and would rather have long term returns.

Just because folks don't understand a business strategy does not make that strategy any less valuable and in fact and in time that is what becomes clear. But my understanding of what things would look like would have to come out of those mines with at least a handful of major gems and a truckload of other domain booty. Each capable of being a small business. A small oil well. Maybe someday the 6000 will be 600. Well 600 pumping out $1000/month is $7.2MM a year BEFORE we get to the premium ones. Before we get to any success or development potential. It's a silly vision. But it is my vision and not a human being on earth has taken that vision from me in these 18 years and only reality can take it from me in the next 18 years.

I just ask a simple question. Am I closer to that vision now than ever before? And when I look around me I am not alone. There are hundreds of you with similar visions. Not the same. Similar. It means we have been on an intersecting path for all these years and likely to continue that way far into the future. We may all have a vision of NORTH.....But we also understand that going Northeast and Northwest is not a bad thing. And as long as we keep going that general direction we will find north. We know the difference between North and South. We know stopping is smarter than going south until you can adjust to continue the journey north. The journey up not down. Others travel in CIRCLES and go nowhere and get angry when we point it out.

But I got off the path on this post. The point is we are going from a state of complete dependence to a state of choice. Complete Independence. A state that puts domain owners in a strong position. 2012 was a HUGE year for domain owners. And to be blunt, in 2013 I have a mission with JointVentures.com that will be central to what is coming. It's time and it's all about time.

I have written extensively on our plans for JointVentures.com so I am clearly on the record as to what we are going to achieve and how long it will take. A 3 year undertaking that is going to change how we all do business. The 20 year plan does not mark the END....it marks the BEGINNING! We have survived the treachery of attacks from being labeled cybersquatters to outright legal theft thru flawed decisions when nobody was looking and nobody cared. That is no longer the case. Everyone is now in OUR game. Everyone is trying to duplicate what WE did. Everyone that has minimized us over the years are now joing OUR game. Welcome!! About time. Bring your money and bring your visions.

I believe more rulings of reverse domain name hijacking in 2012 is making an impact in these frivolous WIPO actions. It won't go to zero but companies are learning the impact of their actions long after their dastardly deed is done. And if not.......Click here.

But the biggest opportunity is coming in the form of .whatever and what they are about to learn. They are about to embark on a path that we have been studying for nearly 2 decades and so many are missing the one component called 'Human Nature'. Let's give people credit, they will adapt to anything if it is in THEIR SELF INTEREST and it is not complex. They won't swallow the same pig with a new dress. Most don't get that part and that is why most won't make it far out of the gate. But a few will figure it out. Maybe. But none by itself or all together will have any impact on .com except greater value. More demand.

So no reason to poo poo .whatever. There is success and failure all mixed in. One more than the other is all. You will have to carefully navigate through all the caucuses that will be blocking the path of progress. .whatever will be a late night joke. That will give it some popularity. But will it be sustainable?

Nobody reading this knows all the answers so lets stop parading around like we do. However we do have knowledge and evidence and we already have the caucuses lining the road in the form of several extensions that you can fill in yourself. We can just call it the .mobi cemetery and they will soon be filled to capacity.

10 great domains make you a domainer. 100 and you are in a very small class. 1000 and the class is getting smaller. 10,000 your class can fit in mini van. 100,000 and that class can fit in a mini.

The destiny is YOURS! My solution is your solution. Time to harness the power of the future by getting there early as we have done time and time again.

Have a GREAT Day!

Rick Schwartz

Morning Folks!!

Let's all congratulate Sahil Gupta for this WELL EARNED DISTINCTION of being named POSTER BOY!!! He EARNED IT!! Let others LEARN from it!! Feel free to circulate this poster!

Feel free to circulate! You can read the backstory HERE!

I think we can say that no Domain Investor has ever quite seen or heard anything like this after losing a domain name he had no rights to and in the process a 3 member esteemed international panel UNANIMOUSLY found him GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. About the worst thing that you can be charged and the found guilty of in reference to Domains.

Sahil Gupta gained prominence when he took to his Twitter feed with a RANT about the loss and the widow he tried to hijack the domain from and then started insulting all domainers.

Then Sahil Gupta did not like the comments of some of us and some believe he was responsible for getting OUR tweets DELETED or we would be locked out of Twitter forever.

Not smart!!

Sahil Gupta has no control over this blog or MY RIGHTS to free speech and MY OPINION!!

Just ONE MORE REASON to control your own destiny by having your own domain and not relying on social platforms like twitter that act first and you are pretty much powerless if you don't want to continue to be locked out whether justified or not!

Rick Schwartz