kiwi.com decision finds reverse domain name hijacking

[Ovicide]

Here's a decision dated January 4, 2005 which I found interesting:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0848.html

The respondent is Future Media Architects.

In reading the decision, I particularly liked:

The Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an instance of reverse domain name hijacking...

After reading the decision, I searched my closet, and threw out a couple containers of their shoe polish.

 

[stuff]

congrats elequa

 

[Theo]

Respondent clearly has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

Respondent bought the domain name for 30.000 US Dollars, and has used it to promote its oxide.com search engine. The use of a domain name for the purpose of redirecting traffic to a website in order to make money from that site is a legitimate use, see Scorpions Musikproductions und Verlagsgesellschaft MBH .v. Alberta Hot Rods WIPO Case No. D2001-0787 and Drew Bernstein and Kill City d/b/a Lip Service v. Action Advertising, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0706.

It is well established that domain names containing common dictionary words, may be registered in good faith and, per se, establish Respondent’s legitimate interest, see Trans Continental Records, Inc. v. Compana LLC, WIPO Case No. D2002-0105. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is moreover in connection with a bone fide offering of goods or services.

Respondent has not registered or used the domain name at issue in bad faith.

Respondent did not register the disputed domain name with the intent to sell it to the Complainant, to disrupt its business, to prevent it from registering its trademark, or to confuse consumers. Respondent did not have knowledge of Complainants mark when it registered the disputed domain name.

Complainant has not presented any evidence to support its allegation that respondent intended or intends to attract users from Complainant’s site.

 

[seeker]

excellent read!

 

[Dave Zan]

I always thought you'd have to ask for a reverse domain hijacking ruling if you
think there are grounds for doing so. Apparently you don't have to.

Oh well, new thing learned (although I'm sure it's not new).

 

[Steen]

Abuse of Policy? Good going WIPO, and congrats to Elequa.

 

[mole]

Another case of stupid companies who didn't appreciate their parents until they died.