TRTL.COM
Megan Briggs - Burness Paull LLC
Coolside's representatives in the Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited UDRP case were Intellectual Property Lawyers Megan Briggs & Colin Hulme of Scottish Law Firm Burness Paull LLP.
Megan Briggs & Colin Hulme lost their case which the WIPO panelists called "an abuse of the administrative proceeding".
August 2021 Megan Briggs is now Senior Associate (Burness Paull LLC having promoting her from Solicitor to Senior Solicitor in August 2016, a few months after having lost the Coolside Limited versus Get On The Web Limited UDRP case).
As mentioned in the article The Hidden Perils of Filing a Baseless UDRP Complaint:
Complainant Counsel's Role:
The complainant's attorney generally bears responsibility for filing a complaint that results in RDNH, as the client relies on his or her legal advice and agreement to file on a client's behalf.
January 2015
Megan Briggs joins Burness Paull LLC as a solicitor.
May 2016
Megan Briggs loses the TRTL.com UDRP case having being found to have abused the UDRP administrative process and her clients Glasgow-based Coolside Limited (distributors of the trtl travel pillow) are found to be Reverse Domain Name Hijackers.
August 2016
Burness Paull LLC promotes Megan Briggs to Senior Solicitor.
August 2019
Burness Paull LLC promotes Megan Briggs to Associate.
August 2021
Burness Paull LLC promotes Megan Briggs to Senior Associate.
You have to wonder why Megan Briggs of Burness Paull filed this UDRP case which was doomed to fail knowing, simply by spending a few minutes studying the UDRP rules (and process), that one of the essential elements required by the UDRP – bad faith registration - could not be proven as the domain name was registered 10 years before the complainant came into existence!
and furthermore, despite Megan Briggs and Colin Hulme having been advised of the futilty of their case by Get On The Web's attorney (and who also drew their attention to another UDRP case WIPO Case No. D2013-1691 concerning the domain name QLP.com), they made no attempt to withdraw the case but instead in desperation ploughed on and sent a hastily prepared "supplemental submission" to WIPO (unauthorised by the UDRP process), which the WIPO panelists said added nothing that would alter their decision.
The panelists' concluding paragraph in the Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited UDRP case sums up by saying:
"In light of the foregoing, this Panel concludes that “the complainant in fact knew or clearly should have known at the time that it filed the complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the UDRP – bad faith in registration and use."