I would say yes. The whois now shows FMA...
Excellent, I really hope it makes the newspapers and Luftansa gets a slagging for behaving like cheap thieves - numpties.
Is there any confirmation for this ? .
If it's true I will dance owntype like your avatar..
Yes, so anyone can confirm this to let dotnom free himself and dance on the board!..
If this is true, then this is awesome news for domaining. It will show that company's can't bully people out of the best domains. w00..
If this is true, it's great....I'd really like to hear how FMA got the initial decision reversed...
Me too, maybe he'll pop in and tell us.
A small note from the whois :.
Updated Date: 30-may-2008.
9 days after this nothing came out to the news..
Is there anyone we can ask from this board or other boards / sites ?
I know but I didn't hear anything from him, so I wondered if there is anyone close to him to verify this for us..
Being able to snag LL.com's like that is reprehensible IMO as they could stand for anything.. Hopefully FMA was able to recover...
I sent him a PM.
If he can tell anything to us for this case will be good..
I would urge you not to send on pm's like this. Last thing he wants is to be bombarded by pm's. If he chooses to let people know what is going on he will do it under his own accord...
This whole thing was a load of crap to start with. When you see the letters "LH" does anyone really think of Lufthansa Airlines. No..
I completely agree. Don't bug people if they don't want to be bugged.
While I have not read the UDRP decision, if FMA lost the domain in UDRP, he most likely filled an injunction in US Federal Court to block the decision. In essence, this is an "appeal" of the UDRP decision. As far as I know, there have been very few people that have actually appealed to the federal court system (most likely due to cost and the fact most people who lose UDRP decisions would also lose a decision in federal court). Based on my limited knowledge of this situation (although I would need to read the decision to confirm), it appears FMA would have a viable chance of winning an appeal.
PS Mod may want to move this to the "legal" section of the forum to prevent bots from scanning this thread...
Does the federal court system work this fast? Seems it was just filed not long ago...
You get the "fast track" when you file for injunctions...
I would fully agree if this was just for informational purposes.
I contact some owners for the purchase of one at least LL.com and I worry for this outcome.
The last thing I want is to bug people when they feel stressed 1. I agree with what you agree. I explained before why.
2. The legal section has a robot exclusion setting ?
I see only this to the txt Disallow: /adserver/..
My understanding is that you have to be a member to view the legal section and that bots do not crawl those threads...
For one thing, it was Elequa and FMA, who've got pretty deep pockets themselves to fight this in court. Some other individual might not have been able to get it back..
There is a pending federal lawsuit over the name, which was filed before the UDRP decision was made. Accordingly, the registration data remains locked in the condition it was when the suit was filed...
Thanks for the legal update jberryhill.
This case is certainly the first that will define the freedom or not of short/generic names.
If it will fail at the end maybe will open the appetite of other big firms to do the same.
As you're in the legal profession maybe it will be good to ask if there is any kind of security for the rest of LL/LLL.coms.
Is there anything we can do as domainers to be protected from these weird claims ?
(if this is offtopic please open a new topic)..
As the time pass I see even shorter and more generic names to be the target of reverse hijacking.
I didn't know of the cello case.
I tried to search it at wipo.
I don't know if I found the right url..
Unfortunately it doesn't, dotnom. These things are treated case to case, and.
One decision won't necessarily influence the outcome of another.
Here are some links on the cello.com dispute: http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0506.htm http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1128040 http://188.8.131.52/search?q=cache...nk&cd=10&gl=ph..
I see elequa in the topic right now and I wanted to express my support as I did in my PM too..
First time I have read that case. Talk about a train wreck. The decision is wrong on two fronts. Nothing like the judicial activism of a UDRP panelist snubbing his nose at the the jurisdiction (or lack thereof) of the US District Court...