Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

[PalmBeach]

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if “the Complainant knew or should have known at the time that it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith, see Futureworld Consultancy Opty Ltd. v. Online Advice, WIPO Case No. D2003-0297.
Reverse domain name hijacking is defined in the Rules as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name”. The onus of proving bad faith is on the Respondent, and mere lack of success of the Complaint is not of itself sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking, see Deutsche Post AG v. NJDomains, WIPO Case No. D2006-0001. Allegations of reverse domain name hijacking have been upheld in circumstances where the registration date of the domain name at issue preceeded the dates of the complainant’s trademark registration, see Deutsche Welle v. DiamondWare Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-1202; and Carsales.com.au v. Flanders, WIPO Case No. D2004-0047.
The Panel considers that the Complainant is represented by Counsel who even on a rudimentary examination of the Policy and its’ application in this area should have appreciated that the Complaint could not succeed where the Respondent’s domain name had been registered three years prior to filing a trademark application or actual use of the mark. Based on the Complainant’s own submissions it is clear that it was aware of the Respondent’s domain name since 2004 and prior to the date on which it began using the mark in its sales and marketing activities.
Initiating domain name dispute resolution proceedings necessarily involves putting the parties to a considerable expenditure of time and in many cases cost and the Policy must not be used unless the complainant has a reasonable and credible belief it is entitled to succeed. In particular, proceedings must not be commenced in a brash and totally unjustifiable attempt to pressure a domain name owner into releasing a legitimately held domain name that considerably pre-dates any trademark rights held by the complainant, see Sustainable Forestry Management Limited v. SFM.com and James M. van Johns “Infa dot Net” Web Services, WIPO Case No. D2002-0535.

[fab]

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

is only a domain dispute decision without any penalties or ramifications. Nothing really to prevent filer from trying there luck.

[dvdrip]

RDNH is totally useless. Very disappointing.

[DNQuest.com]

Again, there can be other factors involved in which a predated domain could be lost. I don't know why you keep going on, maybe you feel offended by their lawyer (by the way, they could care less if you offended)? You have all you need to know, it was suggest you contact an attorney in this field. We have agreed with you what they are trying to do is wrong. Just keep it all in one thread.

[PalmBeach]

FYI: information I am uncovering as I do my research about Revers Domain Hijacking. Not my opinion just the legal fax. I am assuming that not everyone knowns these findings and some will be enlightened, as I was, about a growing practice that could adversely effect all of us. A practice we may not be able to do anything about.

I may be wrong but I mat be right.

John Berryhill Gets Reverse domain Name Hijacking Ruling From NAF