The case was never going to succeed, so why wasn't there a reverse domain name hijacking finding?



Some UDRP panelists are reluctant to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. They will only consider it if the domain owner requests it, and they sometimes ignore the request even when asked.

These panelists will not consider reverse domain name hijacking when the domain owner fails to appear to defend himself, even if it is justified.

Let's look at a recent National Arbitration Forum case involving vanderhall.com. The case was filed by Vanderhall Motor Works, Inc., a maker of electric vehicles that uses the domain VanderhallUSA.com.

There were two main reasons why the case was doomed from the start. First, the registrant acquired the domain before the complainant had any rights to the trademark Vanderhall. Second, the registrant's name is Pim van der Hall. Although the complainant may not have known the registrant's identity when filing the case, this would have been revealed before filing the amended complaint naming the respondent.

As a result, the second two elements of UDRP - legitimate interests and registration and use in bad faith - were bound to fail.

Panelist Nicholas J.T. Smith rightly rejected the case, but why wasn't reverse domain name hijacking considered in such a weak filing?

It's important for UDRP panelists to consider all aspects of a case, including the possibility of reverse domain name hijacking. This can help prevent misused filings and protect the rights of domain owners.

The UDRP is a legal framework established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to resolve disputes arising from the alleged abusive registration of domain names. It provides a streamlined process for trademark holders to recover domain names that have been registered and used in bad faith, infringing on their trademark rights.

However, the UDRP also includes provisions to protect legitimate domain name registrants from overreaching trademark owners. This is where the concept of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking comes into play.

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking occurs when a trademark owner attempts to deprive a legitimate domain name registrant of their rightfully registered domain name through an abusive UDRP complaint. In such cases, the complainant (trademark owner) may be found guilty of engaging in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking if their UDRP complaint is brought in bad faith, primarily to disrupt the domain name registrant's business or to harass them.

As a domain name attorney, I have represented clients on both sides of these disputes. On one hand, I have assisted trademark owners in filing well-founded UDRP complaints to recover domain names that infringe on their intellectual property rights. On the other hand, I have also defended legitimate domain name registrants against baseless UDRP complaints that constitute Reverse Domain Name Hijacking attempts.

In cases of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, the domain name registrant may be entitled to recover reasonable legal fees and costs incurred in defending against the abusive UDRP complaint. This serves as a deterrent against trademark owners from filing frivolous UDRP complaints without proper grounds.

It is crucial for both trademark owners and domain name registrants to understand their rights and obligations under the UDRP framework. As a domain name attorney, I strive to provide comprehensive legal guidance to my clients, helping them navigate the intricate world of domain name disputes and ensuring that their legitimate interests are protected.