For an excellent compilation of domain name cases see the following link:
At 12:59 PM 10/11/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>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