A three member UDRP panel has found Edward Smith of Riverside California, Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in the attempt grab of the domain name Joopa.com
Mr. Smith, who just filed for a trademark on the term Joopa on March 2011, which was granted in December 2012, tried to use the trademark to grab the domain name Joopa.com which was registered some 12 years earlier on January 25, 2000.
The three member panel stated in part:
“In the instant action, the Complainant has not established rights under the Policy and for the reasons state above should have known it could not do so. ”
“Further, the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. ”
“The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.”
“The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”
The trademark was granted for: :
“Providing a web site featuring product ratings of the consumer goods and services of others in the field of restaurants, politics, employers, technology, art, and movies”
Urban Dictionary Definition for Joopa:
1. The essence of annoyingness.
2. A person who is the essence of annoyingness.
Let’s get out of here. Daniel is headed this way; he’s such a joopa.
OR
Jim is full of joopa. In fact he might be jooptastic.
Maybe he always wanted the domain because he was a Joopa – himself 🙂
Somebody please interview him….
Since DomainSherpa is running out of domain actors/actress, Michael can start interview these A-holes starting with P&G and Smith.
The title of the video is WaaaaaTFfffffffffffff were you thinkin!!
Thanks Mike.
joopa.com is added to RDNH.com.
That’s five RDNH decisions in the first three months of the year. A new record.
What’s the penalty for RDNH? Frankly, I’m surprised there aren’t more attempts to hijack long-held domains by newly awarded trademark holders. Seems to me as though it’s relatively easy to initiate a URDP, and the Complainants in all of these cases literally have nothing to lose – so why not try?
@Steve- there’s no penalty for RDNH, and as you point out no real incentive for companies not to try to hijack valuable domains. Even UDRP panelists call the RDNH finding “an empty gesture”. It’s why I and others believe that there should be a real penalty attached to the RDNH-
http://www.domainarts.com/2012/06/18/why-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-needs-to-be-a-real-penalty-and-the-most-comprehensive-list-of-rdnh-cases/
Guys
If we push for a penalty for RDNH you have to be prepared for a penalty for losing a UDRP as well.
When reform comes its not going to be a one way street
As TM holders see it, there is no penalty for losing a UDRP either, other than losing a domain you never had any rights to own in the 1st place.
So your as a domain holder have to be ok with paying the TM holders costs when you lose if you want them to pay your costs when you win
R.E. = ” If we push for a penalty for RDNH you have to be prepared for a penalty for losing a UDRP as well.”
Bring it on! I am all for fairness and the current situation stinks of Money under the table politics. RDNH has a cost and I and others that are legit are willing to pay. If you fear this maybe theres something you need to change I would think ?
Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)
Jeff
I’m willing too
Now you can join the ICA the only organization who is fighting for UDRP reform from the domain holders side.
R.E. = ” If we push for a penalty for RDNH you have to be prepared for a penalty for losing a UDRP as well.”
I think that having the domain taken away is enough of a penalty. Why should there be more? As it stands, a frivolous complaint has no downside to the filer… which is why they do it.
As the Respondent in this case, I plan to ask for reimbursement of my defense costs from the Complainant and his attorneys. If recouping those costs becomes commonplace (through small claims court or other legal proceedings) it might reduce the number of frivolous cases.
udrpSurvivor,
That’s a good idea. I’d surely get my attorney to do the same… if he didn’t suggest it first, which, knowing him, I think he would. Good luck to you.
If has been mentioned a few times on other threads – but what is the law / code used to attempt to get fees reimbursed – obviously UDRP and a RDNH finding have no r4elevance in the US Federal Courts
I agree I don’t know under what law a court can award fees in this situation
Any law / code would require credibility or licensing of Panel – which does not exist – and add to that all the conflicting opinions.
It is likely a suit would have to be made under ACPA for reverse cybersquatting – and that would require serious upfront money – with the hopes of rec0vering that plus the original UDRP costs.
We all need to remember UDRP is an “Administrative” proceeding – NOT a Legal Proceeding 🙂
At the end of the day the RDNH.com and Rick’s wall of shame and likely other is all you can do.
How about 15 USC 1114 (2)(d)(iv) like Scott Day and DigiMedia argued against GoForIt Entertainment back in 2011? Would that work?