Comments

• smlevy42 01:58 pm 25-Oct-2016 This case represents one of the most focussed and careful analysis of reverse domain name hijacking that I've seen in quite a while. I find it admirable that the Panel took the time to both lay out at least four independent bases for a finding of RDNH after first carefully analyzing the Complainant's attempt to avoid such a finding by unilaterally attempting to have the case dismissed. This highlights how critical it is for brand owners (and their representatives) to carefully assess disputes before rushing headlong into a UDRP filing - whether out of ignorance or malice. It is apparent that some IP professionals underestimate the UDRP and, as highlighted by the Panel's admonition that "Complainant and its counsel [should] be familiar with Policy precedent", brand owners would be well advised to only retain professionals who are experienced in UDRP practice and who have an appreciation for its nuances and limitations. Of equal interest, the decision notes that RDNH is “the only form of sanction which the Policy provides for the making of a complaint in bad faith.” This may either encourage or anger those who feel that RDNH is a toothless tiger but that is a matter for a different forum (e.g., ICANN's Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group).