Doesn't this encourage (loathed) CyberSquatting on large 'territories' of
domain names styled to provoke? For the settlement value, "before filing"
and without plans to do so?
From: Carl Oppedahl <[log in to unmask]>
To: Internet and Computer Law Association <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: L Misek-Falkoff <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, October 11, 1999 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Domain Name Questions
>At 10:23 AM 10/11/99 , L Misek-Falkoff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Thanks so much for this early and quite educational response, which will
>>read in detail. And also for the Law Journal Link.
>>Wonder if there have been any cases where a domain name dispute has been
>>judged frivolous, with punitive sanctions or similar penalty applied?
>There have been many recent decisions in favor of domain name owners who
>were targets of reverse domain name hijacking, among them the cds.com and
>dci.com cases (written up at http://www.patents.com/pubs/njl1.htm ), the
>prince.com case in England, and the recent clue.com decision in
>Massachusetts (now on appeal).
>But none of which am aware in which the court has seen fit to sanction the
>reverse domain name hijacker for bringing a frivolous claim.
>The problem, of course, is that historically most RDN hijackers have used
>NSI's policy, so that NSI does the dirty work for them, and imposes no
>penalty for bringing a frivolous claim.
>The new ICANN policy also imposes no penalty for bringing a frivolous