BODIS

Queen.com domain UDRP : High odds that it will be a RDNH finding – here’s why

The Domain King, Rick Schwartz.

The decision on the UDRP against Queen.com, a generic, aged domain owned by Rick Schwartz should be delivered soon.

A poll among DomainGang readers shows that 50% of voters believe a finding of “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” is probable in this case. While 38% of votes predict a win for the Domain King without a RDNH finding, a notable 13% of votes predict a victory for the Complainant, Knud Jepsen A/S of Denmark.

There is, however, an interesting tidbit that points towards an upcoming solid victory for Rick Schwartz, with high odds for a RDNH finding.

The Queen.com case is decided by a three member panel, presumably the choice of the Respondent, which consists of the following panelists:

  • Brown, Evan D.
  • Harmeling, Hub J. (Presiding)
  • Taylor, Adam

This is where it gets interesting.

Adam Taylor is an experienced WIPO panelist, and we’ve shared several cases that he was either a sole panelist, or as part of a three member panel.

Here is the breakdown:

We have shared a total of 7 UDRP decisions involving Mr. Adam Taylor.

Of those, 6 involved Mr. Taylor “solo” and 1 alongside two other panelists. The latter, was a decision on behalf of the Respondent, involving the domain Dune.com.

Of the 6 solo UDRP cases, Mr. Adam Taylor delivered a finding for the Complainant only once, the obvious case of JohnCusack.com.

In the remaining 5 solo UDRP cases, a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking was delivered 3 times, and 2 without RDNH.

Statistically speaking, the odds are looking good for Rick Schwartz to score a victory, or even a RDNH finding in the Queen.com case! 😀


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Copyright © 2018 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.

Comments

2 Responses to “Queen.com domain UDRP : High odds that it will be a RDNH finding – here’s why”
  1. KoolBranding says:

    Although having a decent and open-minded panel member is great and can somewhat insure that there will be a fair hearing. The domain itself is highly generic and Rick isn’t known to abuse any of his domain names by using them for anything that confuses them with any existing trademark. I think any arbiter who dares snatch such a highly generic domain from its rightful owner will be ostracised and rightfully open himself up for a court case contesting such idiotic decision. Sure we’ve seen some bad decisions before but I think it’s highly unlikely within this case. RDNH is also highly possible.
    It’s just too bad that when an RDNH is found, the complainant is not forced to pay for respondent’s expense and time. This MUST change.

Leave a Reply

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

 characters available