Congrats to both John B and Greg on this one: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-0585.html.
Excellent decision. Just out of curiosity: Does the finding of reverse domain name hijacking have any impact in seeking legal remedy for respondent?..
Not even close ..... Two years prior on the reg. Goog search in ES but omits the US results. I mean at best the complaintant might have seen a decal of a competitor. You've gotta love that JB counter with the bad faith claim and got it. Google.es ..... lol.
A couple of questions I have is.... even with the reg being two years prior would respondant's position have suffered if domain was parked for PPC? And would the keyword and ad results played a factor? (relevant to complaintants TM) And would archive.org had shown a better history reflecting parking period and nature of ads?.
Namenut: Since it's a generic/descriptive term, in the US which is where the com registry is, they would still have one hell of a time convincing them that they should get the name. Especially with JB behind it.
I had totally forgot that I reged ReverseHijack.com last year..
Was there some monetary reward for the reverse hijacking finding?.
I assume legal fees etc would have been covered by the complainant.
What are the repercussions for a bad faith complaint and being found to have attempted reverse hijacking?..
Same question I had a few posts earlier in the thread... and would love to hear the answer.
If a finding of reverse hijacking has no meaning other than a "shame on you" note in a file at wipo for somebody that will never again be involved with wipo then that is hardly a legal remedy for somebody that had to hire the *best* domain lawyer on the net (JB) to defend their rights. Do wipo findings of reverse hijacking have any weight in following suits to recover legal fees? IANAL. Is there any case law where a civil suit cites wipo findings of reverse hijacking?..
They could stipulate that if the respondant is going to make a reverse hijacking case the complaintant has to fork over additional funds to cover the fees of the respondant IF he wins and does get the reverse hijacking win.
It's a small change but it shouldn't be prohibitive to larger companies. It would also prevent a lot of these reverse hijacking scenarios if now they have to pay for both fees.