Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Reverse domain hijacking
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== UDRP restrictions on reverse domain name hijacking == Paragraph 15(e) of the [[Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy|UDRP]] rules defines reverse domain name hijacking as the filing of a complaint in bad faith, resulting in the abuse of the UDRP administrative process.<ref>Id.</ref> It becomes difficult to objectively quantify what constitutes subjective “[[bad faith]],” resulting in panels often viewing parties’ factual discrepancies as indeterminable or immaterial at best.<ref>Id.</ref> Therefore, despite its express recognition in the UDRP, reverse domain name hijacking findings are rare and based heavily on the factual circumstances surrounding each case.<ref>Int'l Driver Training, Inc. v. Web Integrations, LLC and Comedy Driving Inc., D2009-0129 (WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, Apr. 9, 2009).</ref> Circumstances which have been cited by [[World Intellectual Property Organization|WIPO]] panels as justification for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking includes: * When the registration of the domain predates any trademark rights of the Complainant. * When the complaint has provided no evidence of bad faith registration or use directed towards the Complainant. * Where the Complainant has used the UDRP as a Plan "B" option to attempt to secure the domain after commercial negotiations have broken off. * Where the Complainant has attempted to deceive the domain owner or makes misrepresentations or fails to disclose material information to the panel. Examples of such findings include the following WIPO cases: [https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2022/d2022-1610.pdf Sanofi SA vs. Monogram Naming LLC over domain Initiv.com] (2022). [https://domainnamewire.com/2015/01/21/rvk-domain-hijacking/ Gregory Ricks vs. RVK, Inc.] ([https://www.rvkinc.com Formally RVKuhns and Associates]) (2015). ''Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.org''<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2013-0371|title=WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2013-0371}}</ref> (2013), ''Webpass, Inc. v. Paul Breitenbach''<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2010/d2010-1796.html%20|title = WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2010-1796}}</ref> (2010), ''[[Urban Logic, Inc. v. Urban Logic, Peter Holland|Urban Logic, Inc. vs. Urban Logic, Peter Holland]]'' (2009), ''[[David Robinson v. Brendan]]'' (2008), ''[[Decal v. Gregory Ricks]]'' (2008), ''Hero v. The Heroic Sandwich''<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0779.html|title = WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2008-0779}}</ref> (2008), ''[[Poker Host Inc. v. Russ “Dutch” Boyd]]'' (2008), ''[[FCC Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas v “FCC.COM”|FCC Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas vs. “FCC.COM”]]'' (2007), ''[[Liquid Nutrition v. liquidnutrition.com|Liquid Nutrition vs. liquidnutrition.com]]'' (2007), ''[[Rohl, LLC v. ROHL SA|Rohl, LLC vs. ROHL SA]]'' (2006), ''Her Majesty the Queen ([[Elizabeth II]]) vs. Virtual Countries, Inc.'',<ref>{{Cite web |title=WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2002-0754 |url=https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html |access-date=2023-11-20 |website=www.wipo.int}}</ref> and ''[[Deutsche Welle v. DiamondWare|Deutsche Welle vs. DiamondWare]]''<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1202.html|title = WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2000-1202}}</ref> (2000). A list of over one hundred reverse domain name hijacking decisions is available at [https://www.rdnh.com/ rdnh.com].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rdnh.com/ |title=Home |website=rdnh.com}}</ref> Although UDRP panelists currently have no tools by which to punish abuses such as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, such a finding might be used in a local jurisdiction where such abuses might constitute a tort such as [[Tortious interference|tortious interference with contract]] or an [[unfair business practice]].<ref name="Doug Isenberg">{{cite web | url=https://giga.law/blog/2016/10/19/what-is-reverse-domain-name-hijacking | title=What is 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'? | date=19 October 2016 | accessdate=17 December 2018 | author= Doug Isenberg}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)