Reverse Domain Hijacking

[neddy]

Just saw a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking case posted on Domain Name Wire. It involved cyclingtips.com

The complainant who got pinged was Australian (they have cyclingtips.com.au) - the respondent Canadian. The 3 member panel contained two Aussies - so no sympathy for the locals!

The case is worth a read. Heavens knows how much the complainant forked out in legal fees and other expenses (all to no avail). Sad to say that the respondent had to fork out too - yet even though they got a RDNH finding, they get nothing back.

One paragraph worth quoting (bolding is mine):

While the use of the disputed domain name made by the Respondent prior to receiving notice of the dispute does not show a genuine use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as the Respondent expressly declared that it registered the disputed domain name because of the inherent value of a domain name composed of generic terms and acknowledged that it pointed it to mere parking pages with pay-per-click links, the Panel finds that the Complainant should have known that it would not be successful in the present UDRP proceeding, due to the Complainant’s lack of any registered trademark corresponding to the disputed domain name, the descriptiveness of the name CYCLINGTIPS and the paucity of evidence establishing that the name CYCLINGTIPS has become distinctive of the Complainant’s services. These fundamental flaws in the Complainant’s case are exacerbated by the facts, which should have been known to the Complainant and its authorised representative, that the registration date of the disputed domain name predated the Complainant’s existence by several years and that there was an absence of any evidence of the Respondent’s intention to target the Complainant.

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that there has been RDNH in this case.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Thanks for sharing Ned

It is interesting, it was rather silly of the Complainant to bring the UDRP in the first place. I like to see these RDNH cases they send an important message that the process cannot be misused.

Neil Brown QC and Andrew Christie were the Aussie panelists, both very experienced.