- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 0
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if âthe Complainant knew or should have known at the time that it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith, see Futureworld Consultancy Opty Ltd. v. Online Advice, WIPO Case No. D2003-0297.
Reverse domain name hijacking is defined in the Rules as âusing the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-nameâ. The onus of proving bad faith is on the Respondent, and mere lack of success of the Complaint is not of itself sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking, see Deutsche Post AG v. NJDomains, WIPO Case No. D2006-0001. Allegations of reverse domain name hijacking have been upheld in circumstances where the registration date of the domain name at issue preceeded the dates of the complainantâs trademark registration, see Deutsche Welle v. DiamondWare Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-1202; and Carsales.com.au v. Flanders, WIPO Case No. D2004-0047.
The Panel considers that the Complainant is represented by Counsel who even on a rudimentary examination of the Policy and itsâ application in this area should have appreciated that the Complaint could not succeed where the Respondentâs domain name had been registered three years prior to filing a trademark application or actual use of the mark. Based on the Complainantâs own submissions it is clear that it was aware of the Respondentâs domain name since 2004 and prior to the date on which it began using the mark in its sales and marketing activities.
Initiating domain name dispute resolution proceedings necessarily involves putting the parties to a considerable expenditure of time and in many cases cost and the Policy must not be used unless the complainant has a reasonable and credible belief it is entitled to succeed. In particular, proceedings must not be commenced in a brash and totally unjustifiable attempt to pressure a domain name owner into releasing a legitimately held domain name that considerably pre-dates any trademark rights held by the complainant, see Sustainable Forestry Management Limited v. SFM.com and James M. van Johns âInfa dot Netâ Web Services, WIPO Case No. D2002-0535.
A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if âthe Complainant knew or should have known at the time that it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith, see Futureworld Consultancy Opty Ltd. v. Online Advice, WIPO Case No. D2003-0297.
Reverse domain name hijacking is defined in the Rules as âusing the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-nameâ. The onus of proving bad faith is on the Respondent, and mere lack of success of the Complaint is not of itself sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking, see Deutsche Post AG v. NJDomains, WIPO Case No. D2006-0001. Allegations of reverse domain name hijacking have been upheld in circumstances where the registration date of the domain name at issue preceeded the dates of the complainantâs trademark registration, see Deutsche Welle v. DiamondWare Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-1202; and Carsales.com.au v. Flanders, WIPO Case No. D2004-0047.
The Panel considers that the Complainant is represented by Counsel who even on a rudimentary examination of the Policy and itsâ application in this area should have appreciated that the Complaint could not succeed where the Respondentâs domain name had been registered three years prior to filing a trademark application or actual use of the mark. Based on the Complainantâs own submissions it is clear that it was aware of the Respondentâs domain name since 2004 and prior to the date on which it began using the mark in its sales and marketing activities.
Initiating domain name dispute resolution proceedings necessarily involves putting the parties to a considerable expenditure of time and in many cases cost and the Policy must not be used unless the complainant has a reasonable and credible belief it is entitled to succeed. In particular, proceedings must not be commenced in a brash and totally unjustifiable attempt to pressure a domain name owner into releasing a legitimately held domain name that considerably pre-dates any trademark rights held by the complainant, see Sustainable Forestry Management Limited v. SFM.com and James M. van Johns âInfa dot Netâ Web Services, WIPO Case No. D2002-0535.
