All.com arbitration failed domain name transaction should be cautious

Recently, the D&n domain name firm learned that a three-person WIPO expert Group dismissed the complainant's application for the all.com domain name dispute on the grounds that it was outside the scope of WIPO's arbitration.

It is understood that the dispute originated from a typical domain name transaction, the buyer provided a large amount of evidence that the domain name has been ordered and has been transfer to the seller's account, and the seller said it was completely unaware of the matter.

The complainant claims that it purchased the disputed domain name all.com through GoDaddy in 2005, in order to protect the domain name right thereby preventing the reverse domain name infringement, the complainant immediately applied for the corresponding trademark in Mexico. However, earlier in 2008, the domain name was transferred to another registrar, and the domain name owner was changed to "all LTD Kovalski Selena" and the domain name manager was Kovalski Selena (the complainant) and all the contact addresses were changed to " 123 South Biscayne BLV 112, Miami Florida 33235, US. Subsequently, the complainant sent a message to the Registrar in an attempt to rectify the error.

But, dramatically, the complainant went on to give a different story. The complainant's lawyer stated in his reply that he had purchased the disputed domain name from the complainant by lawful means at the $80,000 price. The evidence submitted by the complainant includes the mail that the complainant agreed to transfer the domain name at $80,000 Price in 2005, in which $40,000 was paid to the complainant in 2005. The evidence submitted at the same time also shows:

"Full payment will be made and the seller shall take all actions necessary and desirable to protect the buyer's interests, including but not limited to: entrusting InterNIC or other competent authority to change the domain name registration information." ”

At the same time, the complainant claims that the balance was paid to the complainant in January 2008.

The complainant in this case claimed that all the evidence submitted by the complainant was forged and submitted the testimony of the relevant handwriting expert.

Clearly, this is beyond the scope of WIPO's case. This article is supplied by (www.dnfirm.cn).