Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

[texidriver]

Is this "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" or am I not an expert?

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0655.html

 

[tifosi]

Is this "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" or am I not an expert?

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0655.html

Yes.

The complainant used the drs procedure in bad faith in an attempt to deprive the respondant of a domain name that it had legitimate clains to.

S

 

[diablo]

not according to the findings it wasn't:

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that the Panel may make a finding that the Complaint is brought in bad faith in circumstances characterized as reverse domain name hijacking. Although arguable, the Panel declines to find that the Complainant used the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive the Respondent from using his domain name. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant was attempting to assert its trademark rights, without bad faith, as it is entitled to do.

 

[tifosi]

not according to the findings it wasn't:

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that the Panel may make a finding that the Complaint is brought in bad faith in circumstances characterized as reverse domain name hijacking. Although arguable, the Panel declines to find that the Complainant used the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive the Respondent from using his domain name. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant was attempting to assert its trademark rights, without bad faith, as it is entitled to do.

as the saying goes: one mans expert...

asserting trademark rights is a bit loose in this case I think. My opinion it was a blatant attempt to wrest the domain off its legitimate owner. Naivity is no excuse. The company IP lawyers would have known the score.

S

S