Comments on: John Berryhill Gets Reverse domain Name Hijacking Ruling From NAF (enki.com case) http://www.conceptualist.com/2008/03/28/john-berryhill-gets-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-ruling-from-naf-enkicom-case/ Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:44:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Sergei Kulik http://www.conceptualist.com/2008/03/28/john-berryhill-gets-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-ruling-from-naf-enkicom-case/#comment-8775 Sergei Kulik Fri, 23 May 2008 18:12:07 +0000 http://www.conceptualist.com/2008/03/28/john-berryhill-gets-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-ruling-from-naf-enkicom-case/#comment-8775 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. 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.

]]> By: Fin http://www.conceptualist.com/2008/03/28/john-berryhill-gets-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-ruling-from-naf-enkicom-case/#comment-7139 Fin Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:20:04 +0000 http://www.conceptualist.com/2008/03/28/john-berryhill-gets-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-ruling-from-naf-enkicom-case/#comment-7139 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. 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.

]]> By: DP http://www.conceptualist.com/2008/03/28/john-berryhill-gets-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-ruling-from-naf-enkicom-case/#comment-6932 DP Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:51:31 +0000 http://www.conceptualist.com/2008/03/28/john-berryhill-gets-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-ruling-from-naf-enkicom-case/#comment-6932 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. 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.

]]> By: eric shannon http://www.conceptualist.com/2008/03/28/john-berryhill-gets-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-ruling-from-naf-enkicom-case/#comment-6920 eric shannon Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:19:01 +0000 http://www.conceptualist.com/2008/03/28/john-berryhill-gets-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-ruling-from-naf-enkicom-case/#comment-6920 hurray, congrats to John!!! how about damages? should someone launch a website at reversedomainnamehijackers.com to brand these bullies? hurray, congrats to John!!! how about damages?

should someone launch a website at reversedomainnamehijackers.com to brand these bullies?

]]>