Posts and Articles
Stevan Lieberman has written a comprehensive discussion of RDNH, both in ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Policy) and in the U.S. Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA).
Rick Schwartz’s Hall of Shame publicly shames those companies that have been found guilty of RDNH.
Panelist The Honorable Neil Brown QC gives his views on RDNH, including that panelists have a positive duty to consider whether a RDNH finding is warranted whether or not the Respondent requests it.
Bill Hartzer provides an easy to understand example of RDNH.
Selected ccTLD Decisions Finding that the Complaint is an Abuse of Process
Country code extensions (ccTLDs) are not overseen by ICANN. The rules for each ccTLD may be unique to that country’s registry. Many ccTLDs have developed their own dispute policies that differ from the ICANN UDRP policy in significant ways. As the criteria for RDNH under the dispute policy for a particular ccTLD may differ from the criteria under the UDRP, these decisions are not included in the table of RDNH decisions under the UDRP. Determinations by a panelist that a complaint was an abuse of a ccTLD dispute policy are listed here as we learn of them.
affirm.com.au (WIPO Decision) June 4, 2021
threebestrated.com.au (WIPO Decision) May 11, 2020
datacom.net.au (WIPO Decision) March 4, 2020
smartmark.com.au (WIPO Decision) February 19, 2020
carmans.com.au (WIPO Decision) February 2, 2016
etg.com.au (WIPO Decision) April 17, 2015
wow.com.au (WIPO Decision) July 24, 2007
kinetiksports.eu (WIPO Decision) May 15, 2021
levelup.gg (CIDD Decision) November 30, 2020
somavedic.co.uk D23540 June 14, 2021
vipbody.co.uk D23130 January 25, 2021
peli.co.uk D22816 November 12, 2020
matesrates.co.uk D21240 June 6, 2019
chemist.uk D21149 May 9, 2019
siteready.co.uk D21142 May 7, 2019
splitpay.co.uk D21075 April 15, 2019
pusher.co.uk D20783 January 3, 2019
dignity.co.uk D18931 October 17, 2017 (upheld on appeal)
hrworks.uk/hrworks.co.uk D18610 May 24, 2017
so31.co.uk D14891 December 31, 2015
mango.uk/mango.co.uk D15585 May 5, 2015
chemist4u.co.uk D14891 November 30, 2014
psg.co.uk D5899 October 13, 2008
pleasureland.co.uk D2206 February 9, 2005
dodge.co.uk D1114 September 8, 2003
cardpoint.co.uk D538 September 20, 2002
Illuminating Panel Findings
(Former) panelist Dr. Martin Mueller sees the RDNH as appropriate when trademark holders file a UDRP complaint without sufficient evidence of bad faith on the part of the domain registrant:
The ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) makes challenges to domain name assignments relatively easy and inexpensive. It is, therefore, absolutely essential for panelists to ensure that it be carefully restricted to cases of abusive, bad faith registration. In particular, we must not allow it to be used by complainants to seek control of names that happened to be registered by someone else first. The mere possession of a trademark, in and of itself, does not give a party a colorable claim to a domain name under the UDRP.
A panel can make a finding of RDNH even if it is not requested by the Respondent, and indeed, even in cases where the Respondent fails to make any response.
This is stated by Panelist Richard Lyon in the womantowomanhealthcenter.com decision:
Panel’s Initiative in Considering Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. On his own initiative the Panel considers whether Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). This Panel firmly believes a UDRP panel may make this inquiry in an appropriate case even if not so requested by the respondent, and indeed should do so fully to discharge its obligations under the Rules, see Goway Travel Limited v. Tourism Australia, WIPO Case No. D2006-0344 (citation omitted) (“The Rules specifically put the burden on the Panel to determine whether a complainant has tried to use ‘the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name.’“), and to preserve the integrity of the UDRP process, see Credit Europe Bank N. V. v. Peter Yu, WIPO Case No. D2010-0737 (concurring opinion); Bittorrent Marketing GmbH v. Adlntensity Ltd, Adam Smith, WIPO Case No. D2007-1033 (opinion dissenting from denial of RDNH).