|
||
International Lighting Corporation, Australia found Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Highjacking on 18 year old domain name interlight.com. |
||
Law Firm Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, loses UDRP
case in its attempt to unfairly grab 18 year old interlight.com domain name for its client International Lighting Corporation. The WIPO panelist found International Lighting Corporation represented by Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone to be Reverse Domain Name Hijackers. |
||
|
||
The WIPO panelist stated: The ruling on the case (International Lighting Corporation v. Beat Brunner and Interlight SA) can be found at WIPO Case No. D2015-2029 |
||
In deciding that the Complainant was guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, the panelist's conclusion sums up by saying: "Given the nature of the Policy and the fact that the Complainant was legally advised this was a case which the Complainant should have appreciated had no reasonable prospects of success. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."
|
||
There are news stories about the interlight.com domain name UDRP case on DomainNameWire.com "Lighting company Interlight is a reverse domain name hijacker". There are numerous sources for "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking". Amongst these are RDNH.com and HallOfShame.com (which includes a current list of those found guilty of trying to Reverse Hijack a Domain Name in which they had no legal rights. In other words they tried to bully the rightful owners into relinquishing their property and forcing these innocent parties to spend thousands to defend what they already own). See also Does the UDRP do more harm than good? and The UDRP: A Problem at the Core of the Internet
Back to QLP.com (Quality Logo Products failed UDRP) |