ADNDRC HK and some of its panelists - bad, unethical & illegal conducts evidences

[MDM]

Since the ridiculous decision for 长江.com (HK-0800172, YantzeRiver.com, the longest river in China) was rendered by David Kreider http://davidlaurencekreider.com/index.html , 1 of the 70 onlist panelists http://www.adndrc.org/adndrc/hk_panelist.html in Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center - Hong Kong Office (ADNDRC HK), there have been high concerns about the impartiality and independence of the panelists on list of the Provider like ADNDRC HK.

Recent researches indicate the high likeliness of the non existence of the above quality expected from panelists (or certain of them) of ADNDRC HK. It is believed it is relatively easy to remove those non qualified panelists from the list of panelists, however, if the problems of non impartiality and non independence also involve ADNDRC HK itself, a Provider to domain name dispute resolution, it will be a much more serious issue.

Researches also point to the possible corruptions involved as the panelist, decision, complianant, complainant's representative lawyers for a batch of cases handled by ADNDRC HK involve too many unconvining coincidence, and findings also show obvious priviledged / discriminated treatments by ADNDRC HK for decisions rendered in favour of / against a particular group of complainants e.g. appointment of panelists, speed of handling the complaint cases, decision announcement dates etc.

There have also been discussion on the decision rendered for 长江.com (HK-0800172) and the findings about the suspected unethical and illegal conducts by certain panelists and ADNDRC HK, below are some of them:

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/2058...ghlight=yantze (in particular, post 41 and onwards http://www.idnforums.com/forums/2058...ghlight=yantze )

http://www.idnclub.com/showthread.ph...95%BF%E6%B1%9F

http://www.domain.cn/club/viewthread...e=1#pid5749445 (in particular, post 9 and onwards)

http://www.domain.cn/club/viewthread...F%E6%B1%9F.com

http://www.domain.cn/club/viewthread...F%E6%B1%9F.com

http://www.domain.cn/club/viewthread...F%E6%B1%9F.com

http://www.domain.cn/club/viewthread...F%E6%B1%9F.com

Thanks for the input so far for uncovering the unethical and suspected illegal acts (e.g. corruption) by ADNDRC HK and some of their panelists. We are still gathering more information and evidences before moving to next steps and actions.

Please continue to pm / email your findings, in particular to the following cases to Giant / us.

Originally Posted by MDM

For those folks who have been the Respondent to domain name complaint cases, or you have your own findings,

i) where Mr. Li Ka Shing / group co are the complainant; OR

ii) where Wilkinson & Grist, solicitors, Hong Kong is the authorized representative; OR

iii) where David Kreider is included in the 5-panel list given to you for selection by ADNDRC; OR

iv) where there are other exceptions / irregularities you have noticed about ADNDRC HK and/or its panel(s).

Pls pm us / Giant.

[MDM]

Additional finding about the high likeliness of the non impartiality and non independence of David Kreider http://davidlaurencekreider.com/index.html in his cases involving the parties quoted above plus ADNDRC HK. Such 'crime' is not possible without the help of ADNDRC HK and certain puppet panelists on its panel list.

Below is information provided and authoirsed for disclosure by the ex owner of 长江基建.com HK-0800179.

a. The ex owner overlooked the ADNDRC HK's emails so it was a case without response (i.e. owner failed to file a response to the complaint on time).

b. David Kreider is the sole panelist to the case and as observed for all his cases ( http://davidlaurencekreider.com/page10/page10.html ) involving ADNDCR HK and Li Ka Shing group, he ordered the name to be transferred.

c. After the recent review of their emails, the ex owner of 长江基建.com finds the following suspicious acts about ADNDRC HK and David Kreider :

* ADNDRC HK set 9 Oct 2008 as the last date for the submission of response. The ex owner of the domain defaulted in the response submission because of its overlooking emails from ADNDRC HK.

* ADNDRC HK sent an email to the complainant and ex owner of the domain Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:15 PM informing the respondent's default in filing response.

* ADNDRC HK sent an email to the complainant and ex owner of the domain Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:40 PM (i.e only 25 mins after the notice of respondent's default in response submission, that David Kreider was appointed as the sole panelist.

The super quick appointment (within 25 mins) of David Kreider is highly suspicious. An appointed panelist should have, before his appointment, signed a Declaration of Impartiality and Independence and a Statement of Acceptance of the case. So ADNDRC HK and David Kreider needed to do a lot of works to legitimatize all the procedures within the 25 mins!! How busy they were huh?! Or actually David Kreider (and other puppets?) was 'appointed' as a default?

[MDM]

Latest update:

1. ADNDRC HK seems to have stopped 'employing' David Kreider (but a new one) in handling Li Ka Shing group's complaint cases, probably they have read postings here.

2. After failure in getting 長江.com and 长实集团.com in initial complaints, the complainant (Li Ka Shing group), through its lawyers (Wilkinson & Grist) filed REPEATED complaints with WIPO WITHOUT NOTIFYING WIPO of the previous complaint. Obviously the complainant (or the lawyers actually) are not ethical that's why they could work closely and smoothly with those crooks administrators (and some panelists) in ADNDRC HK.

3. WIPO Decision on the Wilkinson & Grist's REPEATED (BUT UNINFORMED) complaints:

3a 長江.com
- complaint denied
- complaint found to be "brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" !!!

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2009-0540.html


Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

"The term reverse domain hijacking refers to the practice of acquiring domain names from owners by accusing them of violating trademarks with the domain name, and demanding that the domain be transferred." wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_domain_hijacking)


3b. 长实集团.com
- complaint denied

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2009-0289.html


Obviously WIPO panelists are more impartial then those in ADNDRC HK.

The conducts of the complainant's lawyers Wilkinson & Grist are unprofessional and unethical.


4. Additional posts about ADNDRC HK and the complainant,

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/2210...ghlight=adndrc

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/2237...ghlight=adndrc

[thefabfive]

Great reading! Thanks for posting.

And congratulations to the owner.

[mgrohan]

Thanks for sharing

[Drewbert]

Excellent outcome, especially since all 3 of the panelists agreed on the reverse hijacking finding.

Have you posted the entire history of the ADNDRC to circleid.com?

[yanni]

- complaint found to be "brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" !!!

I just love the sound of this.

[Giant]

Originally Posted by thefabfive

And congratulations to the owner.

I believe this is the 1st IDN Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Here's the news:

---------

Hong Kong Billionaire Li Ka Shing’s Companies Guilty of Domain Name Hijacking

A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) domain name dispute adjudication panel has found two companies owned by Hong Kong billionaire, Li Ka Shing, guilty of Attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, over the domain name, 長江.com, which means YangtzeRiver.com.

Geneva, Switzerland, August 3, 2009 – A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) domain name dispute adjudication panel has found two companies owned by Hong Kong billionaire, Li Ka Shing, guilty of Attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, over the domain name, 長江.com, which means YangtzeRiver.com.

Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited and Cheung Kong Property Development Limited of Hong Kong, both companies owned by Li Ka Shing who was listed by Forbes as the 11th richest man in the world in 2008, had attempted to wrest away the domain name from Canadian based business, Netego DotCom. Li Ks Shing’s companies had alleged that Netego registered the domain name 8 years ago in order to capitalize off of the complainant’s trademark rights in “Cheung Kong” (meaning Yangtze River). Netego however defended the legal proceeding on the basis that it had an inherent legitimate interest to register the name of one of the most famous rivers in the world, the Yangtze River, as a domain name, and was using it in connection with a web site about Yangtze river cruises.

This was not however, the first time Li Ka Shing’s companies had tried to grab this domain name. Only months before, they had tried and lost a nearly identical arbitration against Netego. The Panel of three distinguished intellectual property adjudicators stated in their decision that “what is particularly troubling here is that Complainants never even notified the Panel that this was a re-filed Complaint. The fact that the submitted Complaint nowhere refers to the previous proceeding, suggests to the Panel that Complainants may have deliberately attempted to hide that fact from the Panel.” Accordingly, the WIPO Panel found that Li Ka Shing’s companies’ actions constituted an “abuse of process” and therefore entered a finding of “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking”.

Li Ka Shing’s companies were represented by Wilkinson & Grist, a Hong Kong law firm. Netego was represented by domain name legal expert, Zak Muscovitch, of The Muscovitch Law Firm, Toronto, Canada. Zak Muscovitch stated, “This is a good lesson for any large company that thinks that they can abuse the legal system to grab a domain name away from the rightful owner. Just because you have billions of dollars does not mean that you can take what you want.” Zak Muscovitch also stated, “The fact is that the Yangtze River was around long before Li Ka Shing’s corporate name; in fact he selected his corporate name after the river, not the other way around. Accordingly, anyone in the world, including my client, has a right to register this domain name”. The decision: http://www.DNattorney.com and at:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2009-0540.html.

About The Muscovitch Law Firm: Zak Muscovitch of the Muscovitch Law Firm is a domain name law expert and has been defending domain name owners against wrongful attempts to hijack domain names for 10 years. He has been counsel on numerous precedent setting decision in the domain name law field.

Contact:
Zak Muscovitch, 416-924-5084, zak@muscovitch.com, www.DNattorney.com, www.muscovitch.com

[MDM]

Originally Posted by Drewbert

Excellent outcome, especially since all 3 of the panelists agreed on the reverse hijacking finding.

Have you posted the entire history of the ADNDRC to circleid.com?

Not yet posted to circleid.com .

Below are some points to be posted there and sent to other bodies and authorities. We welcome additional input.

1. the abuse & own violation or breaching of procedures by ADNDRC HK (David Cai and Ricky Wong as administrators),

2. the highly suspicious conspiracy of ADNDRC HK with:

a. Wilkinson & Grist (Hong Kong partner : Mena Lo, representing the various controversial Li Ka Shing group's complaints cases, who did at least 2 refilings with WIPO, intentionally not informing WIPO of previous filings (they lost in the intitial filing))

b. Li Ka Shing group (who made repeated attempts & complaints to ADNDRC HK through Wilkinson & Grist . This giant business empire is recently found to be in bad faith and involved in "Reverse Domain Names Hijacking" (RDNH) by WIPO)

c. David Kreider (highly suspicious "appointed-by-default" ADNDRC HK panelist to handle Li Ka Shing cases before people made postings here and in other forums; he ordered 100% names transfer except in a 3-panelist case he was not supported by the other 2 panelists; David also wrote in one decision for one of Li Ka Shing group's complaint "defending for the complainant" that it owned a legal trademark and so fulfill 1 of the 3 URDP requirements, but in fact Li Ka Shing group did not state so in their complaints, so David was creating something from nothing to write up his 'decision' to order name transfer!! Very unprofessional, negligent and illegal!!!)

d. Yun Zhao (another super highly suspicious "appointed-by-default" ADNDRC HK panelist, who has handled some 30 out of 200 ADNDRC HK cases, who ordered 100% names transfer in all 30 cases; however, there are 70 panelists in ADNDRC HK for selection by both complaints and respondents, the extremely high hit rate of his appointment by BOTH the respondents and complainants is impossible, IF ADNDRC HK has been following the procedures impartially)

e. suspected new-generation "appointed-by-default" ADNDRC HK panelist(s) to replace David Kreider and Yun Zhao

f. existence of "appointed-by-default" panelists who appears to be "employed" by ADNDRC HK and several group of lawyers firm in abusing and violating procedures to RDNH domain names and made big money or getting other untold benefits


We and a group of parties are still gathering further information and we welcome additional input.

We know someone is asking ADNDRC HK to release summary for all ADNDRC HK cases for the following particulars,
- handling ADNDRC HK administrator
- particpating panelist(s)
- representing lawyers
- decision outcome
- whether respondents were given legitimate right to rank panelists (we have evidences that ADNDRC HK did not follow this in some cases especially before these postings, in particular for Li Ka Shing group's complaints filed thru Wilkinson & Grist)
- time gap between submission of response to appointment of panelist(s)
- time gap between date of panel decision to date of online publish
- release of some cases known to be finalised but not found in ADNDRC HK's site, with reasons of not publishing

[MDM]

Originally Posted by Drewbert

Excellent outcome, especially since all 3 of the panelists agreed on the reverse hijacking finding.

Have you posted the entire history of the ADNDRC to circleid.com?

Can't find the email address for circleID just a form there. Anyone can provide such?

[bwhhisc]

Congratuations to Giant on a successful outcome.
This will set a good benchmark for future claims.

[MDM]

Originally Posted by bwhhisc

Congratuations to Giant on a successful outcome.
This will set a good benchmark for future claims.

This has not finished, crooks panelists cooperating with lawyers promoting RDNH business cannot survive if the arbitration office runs independently and impartially. Now some crooks panelists and unethical lawyers are spotted, but there will be new ones coming if there is still a platform for them.

The problems are mainly with ADNDRC HK.

Can't find the email address for circleID just a form there. Anyone can provide such? And icann email?

[bwhhisc]

Originally Posted by MDM

This has not finished, crooks panelists cooperating with lawyers promoting RDNH business cannot survive if the arbitration office runs independently and impartially. Now some crooks panelists and unethical lawyers are spotted, but there will be new ones coming if there is still a platform for them. The problems are mainly with ADNDRC HK. Can't find the email address for circleID just a form there. Anyone can provide such? And icann email?

Seems that WIPO has ruled on this case...does ADNDRC-HK have other jurisdiction?

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2009-0540.html

[Wot]

A great and just result.

[MDM]

Originally Posted by bwhhisc

Seems that WIPO has ruled on this case...does ADNDRC-HK have other jurisdiction?

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2009-0540.html

What do you mean bw?

[Asiaplay]

Great News - Congrats Gaint...

I am very happy to see this decision and that the final decision on these things can be made outside of just Hong Kong (there is some justice in the world ).

I also agree this is a very good test case and the result was very important - and case handled very well (well done!).

Cheers - Asiaplay

[phio]

Congrats! It's on DNJournal now!

[MDM]

Originally Posted by Asiaplay

Great News - Congrats Gaint...

I am very happy to see this decision and that the final decision on these things can be made outside of just Hong Kong (there is some justice in the world ).

I also agree this is a very good test case and the result was very important - and case handled very well (well done!).

Cheers - Asiaplay

Hong Kong is basically a place with high level of justice.

Everywhere around the world will there exist low-quality trash like adndrc HK, it's not representing Hong Kong.

Something will be done to fix them and their partner RDNH lawyers and panelists soon, but let's wait to see further.

[Asiaplay]

MDM,

Happy you think so... prefer not to go into that topic - cheers, Asiaplay

[Giant]

MDM,

Pls check your PM, I have problem sending email from my email server.

In short, Zak Muscovitch is a very knowledgeable and experienced domain name lawyer. He knows the art of winning.

To answer some of your questions, pls read:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2009-0289.html

In this case, Cheung Kong was not punished for deceiting the Panel and hiding the fact of a re-filed Complaint (although the Panel denied the Complaint).