TRTL.COM

ADO.com domain name owner sued Mexican bus company for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

In the WIPO UDRP case regarding the 3-letter domain name ADO.com:

Autobuses de Oriente ADO, S.A. de C.V. v. Private Registration / Francois Carrillo
Case No. D2017-1661 filed August 2017

a WIPO panel comprising of 3 panelists (Christopher S. Gibson, William R. Towns and David H. Bernstein) ordered the confiscation of the domain name ADO.com and that the domain name be transferred to the complainant, a Mexican bus company (Autobuses de Oriente ADO, S.A. de C.V.).

See news stories about the ADO.com UDRP case:

WIPO panel screws Domaining.com owner Francois Carrillo out of Ado.com
Three letter .com domain ADO .com lost via the UDRP process

However the domain name owner commenced a lawsuit suing the Mexican bus company for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and seeking to recover actual and/or statutory damages and attorney’s fees and costs.

See news stories about the lawsuit regarding the ADO.com domain name:

Much Ado about Ado.com: Carrillo sues bus company after bad UDRP decision  
The company that took ADO.com via UDRP is now getting sued for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
What’s So Outrageous Asking High Prices for Domain Names?
The ADO.com decision brings up another potential problem

Launching frivolous UDRP cases is not without risk to the complainant and some aggrieved domain name owners resort to seeking damages through the court system.

See the case of a Belgium maker of ultrasound equipment paying $50,000 to settle a lawsuit stemming from a frivolous UDRP case that it filed over the domain name SDT.com.

and Telepathy scores $40,000 from reverse domain name hijacking case

and Company pays $25k to resolve lawsuit stemming from UDRP

and City of Paris paid $125,000 for reverse domain name hijacking

and $65,000 legal fees awarded in reverse domain name hijacking case

The Internet Commerce Association has issued a statement regarding the ADO.com UDRP case:

ICA Statement on ADO.com UDRP Decision: Overreaching Panelists and Interference With Domain Market

The Internet Commerce Association (ICA) has already published its proposal for
UDRP REFORM

Indeed, The ADO UDRP Decision is an Embarrassment to ICANN and Serves as a “Gift” to UDRP Reform Argument

The Outcome

On the 21st December 2018 Francois Carrillo (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Autobuses de Oriente ADO, S.A. de C.V. (“Defendant”)  settled out of court:

Plaintiff and Defendant have entered into a settlement agreement in which the parties
have agreed, among other things that:
(A)
Plaintiff’s interests in respect of the ado.com domain name are legitimate;
(B)
Plaintiff did not register or use the ado.com domain name in bad faith,
(C)
Plaintiff’s registration and current use of the ado.com domain name do not violate
Defendant’s rights under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§
1114, 1125(a) and 1125(d), and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy;
and
(D)
Plaintiff may continue to own the ado.com domain name pursuant to the Parties’
Agreement; and
(E)
Defendant had a good faith belief at the time it filed its UDRP and counterclaim
that its rights were being violated.

As of January 2019, the domain name ADO.COM is being offered for sale

Return to www.TRTL.com homepage.