When a bad UDRP decision comes down against a domain owner, like the one on ADO.com, comments flood in to go to court, win it back there.
Well that’s a two way street, companies follow that same premise.
I read a very good post on IPLegalCorner.com by Gerald M. Levine. The post discusses something that over the years I have written on Namepros about to less than experienced domain investors.
The UDRP is not the only route for someone to come after you, many feel like, “Oh I won’t reply if I get a UDRP and just lose the name, I don’t care much about the name.”
Mr.Levine shows that you need to have an even deeper concern, winning the UDRP as the recipient and then losing in court, because the company ain’t refiling the UDRP, they are coming for big dollars and the domain.
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) is a much bigger worry.
Here is an example cited in the article that concerns well known domainer and former DNForum owner Greg Ricks.
There was also, more recently, the “just bulbs” case, Bulbs 4 East Side Inc., d/b/a Just Bulbs v. Fundacion Private Whois/ Gregory Ricks, D2013-1779 (WIPO January 13, 2014) (Complaint denied, but successful in ACPA action, Bulbs 4 E. Side, Inc. v. Ricks, (S.D. Tex., Houston Div. July 18, 2017 together with an award of damages for $50,000 and attorney’s fees)..
Read the full article here