All com arbitration domain name transactions need to be cautious

recently, D&, N domain name firm learned that a group of three experts WIPO dismissed the complainant on the application of domain name dispute, on the grounds that this does not belong to the scope of arbitration WIPO.

it is understood that the dispute originated in a typical system of domain name transaction, the buyer provides plenty of evidence that the domain name has already ordered and transfer money to the account of the seller and the seller, but said all don’t know this thing.

complaint claims that in 2005 by GoDaddy to purchase the disputed domain name, in order to protect the rights of the domain name in order to prevent reverse domain name infringement, the complainant then apply for a trademark in Mexico. However, in early 2008, the domain name was transferred to another registrar there, at the same time, the owner of the domain name is changed to "All Ltd Kovalski Selena", Kovalski Selena (domain name management for the case of the respondent), all contact addresses were changed to "123 South Biscayne Blv 112, Miami Florida 33235, US". Subsequently, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Registrar in an attempt to correct the wrong practice.

but, dramatically, the complainant has given a different story. The respondent’s lawyer claimed in his defence that he had purchased the disputed domain name from the complainant at a price of $80000 through a legal means. The evidence submitted by the complainant included in 2005 the complainant agreed to transfer the domain name to the $80000 price of the mail, which $40000 has been paid to the complainant in 2005. At the same time the evidence submitted documents also show:

"you can pay the full payment, the seller will take all necessary action to look forward to, and protect the interests of all the buyer, including but not limited to: commissioned by InterNic or other authorized institutions to change the domain name registration information."

at the same time, the respondent has declared in January 2008 will pay the balance to the complainant.

and the complainant in the case claimed that all the evidence submitted by the complainant was forged and submitted to the testimony of the relevant handwriting experts.

obviously, this has exceeded the scope of the WIPO case. This paper consists of ( feeds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *