In reviewing 77 contested cases in the last 6 months at the FORUM, I found what I believe to be a few very bad decisions based upon the information provided by the Panelist in his or her Decision.  On February 9th, panelist ELENI LAPPA, was the sole panelist in the Complaint filed by Amazon Technologies, […]

The two largest providers for UDRP claims are WIPO and the FORUM.  However, while WIPO published 2,050 decisions in the last 6 months, FORUM only had 697, of which 620 (89%) were uncontested.  Of the 77 contested cases, only 29 (38%) were Denied.  Interestingly, however, this is almost the same percentage of Denials that were […]

It seems that the Panelists at WIPO are finding Complainants and their attorneys guilty of Abuse of the UDRP Process, known as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH), more than ever before. So, we are starting a SHAMING of all those who knowingly file Complaints that they can’t (or shouldn’t) win as well as their attorneys […]

In the first 6 months of 2021, there have been a few very good decisions, but also a number of very bad decisions that I wish to bring to your attention.  The year started off with a bad decision from Panelist Nick Gardner in Case #2020-3387, Roehrman v. hu huaigin.  The Complainant had a trademark […]

With 2,050 decisions by panelists in the last 6 months, WIPO has been very active in UDRP cases.  1,728 of those cases went by default because the domain registrant failed to respond to the Complaint.  Most of those were cybersquatters who give a bad name to the domain industry in general and domain investors in […]

This is Part 2 of our Annual UDRP Review; Panelists provided by the FORUM.  Like WIPO, 87% of the cases decided by Panels in the past 6 months from July 1, 2020, to December 32, 2020, were by default.  There were a total of 894 case decisions rendered, of which 777 received no Response.  Of […]

In a very recent case before the ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), a 3 member Panel denied the Complaint in a claim for ICRM.COM.  In the case of iEnterprises, Holdings, LLC v. Private Domain (Mira Holdings, Inc.), Case No. 103374, the Panel found that although the Complainant held a pre-existing trademark for ICRM, […]

In a very recent case before the ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), a 3 member Panel denied the Complaint in a claim for ICRM.COM.  In the case of iEnterprises, Holdings, LLC v. Private Domain (Mira Holdings, Inc.), Case No. 103374, the Panel found that although the Complainant held a pre-existing trademark for ICRM, […]

For a number of years, our readers have looked forward to our Annual Review of WIPO Decisions; what Panelists have been more favorable to Domain Investors, which Panelists to avoid if possible, and why cybersquatters give us all a bad reputation with the public.  This year we are “beefing up” our report to provide you […]

In the case of BRH International, Inc. v. Mira Hold/Mira Holdings, Inc.,FA2010001918789, the FORUM 3-person panel not only found for the Respondent, but also found the Complainant guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking of the domain HEMPER.COM.  The Respondent had the winning bid at an auction in 2018, and it turns out that the Complainant […]