Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Information

Domaining site recommended by

RDNH Reform


A finding of RDNH lacks a penalty.  Nor is there any clear criteria for when a RDNH finding should be made.

Andrew Allemann highlights how some panels ignore a request for an RDNH finding and issue a decision without determining whether the Complaint constitutes an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking. argues that there should be a penalty for RDNH.


Many Complaints appear to be blatant examples of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.  Yet Panels are often remarkably reluctant to issue deserved findings of RDNH.  The UDRP suffers from an egregious double standard where panels find domain owners guilty of bad faith behavior for not developing generic domains or for links on registrar provided “coming soon” pages that the domain owner has no control over, while finding excuses such as the “idiot defense” for Complainants who willfully file frivolous complaints.

Here are a few decisions that have been highlighted in industry blogs for failing to make an RDNH finding when it was deserved-

TheDomains laments the lack of an RDNH finding in the case. write-up at