John Berryhill Gets Reverse domain Name Hijacking Ruling From NAF (enki.com case) at Conceptualist.com, By Sahar Sarid

John Berryhill Gets Reverse domain Name Hijacking Ruling From NAF (enki.com case)

Published on March 28, 2008 in Reading.

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

            Respondent
has urged the Panel to find that Complainant has engaged in everse domain             name hijacking by submitting a
Complaint, which Complainant knew or should have

            known was devoid of merit.
Respondent contends Complainant knew or in the exercise            of even slight effort should have
known that <enki.com> had been
registered several          years prior to
Complainant’s first claimed use of the ENKI mark. The Panel agrees.   See    Aspen
Grove, Inc. v. Aspen Grove, D2001-0798 (WIPO Oct. 5, 2001) (finding that
when          the complainant knows it has
no rights in the mark but brings a complaint despite this      fact, the complainant has acted in bad
faith and attempted Reverse Domain Name      Hijacking
which constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding); see also Vortal    Group, Inc. v. Digital
Transp., FA 222968 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2004) (”The
claim             for reverse domain name
hijacking is granted, because
filing a Complaint which one        knows
or should have known would fail based upon the admissions of Complainant can           be interpreted as harassing per se and should be discouraged.”?); 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”?).
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 in accordance with Policy ¶
15(e).

Source: NAF

4 Responses to “John Berryhill Gets Reverse domain Name Hijacking Ruling From NAF (enki.com case)”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 eric shannon
Mar 29th, 2008 at 9:19 am

hurray, congrats to John!!! how about damages?

should someone launch a website at reversedomainnamehijackers.com to brand these bullies?
2 DP
Mar 29th, 2008 at 11:51 am

It seems the label ‘reverse name hijack’ is meaningless. People will band around ‘cyber squatter’ all day long but when these companies try to steal domains and force legitimate domain owners to incur legal fees on a bad faith claim, there should be some consequences. It’s pretty much a “nothing to lose” $1500 gamble (trivial to most corporations) on a name as it stands today.
3 Fin
Apr 1st, 2008 at 3:20 pm

There should be an additional bond posted when filing a UDRP (like $5-$10k) that a portion of would go to a winning respondent and all if the panel found RH.
4 Sergei Kulik
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Yes I think the other guys idea of a Bond to be posted before the complaint is heard would be good. That would put off speculative chancers who think it is worth a shot even if they might not succeed.