In this case study video, I discuss Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH), which occurs when a panel under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) finds that a complainant used the UDRP in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.
As I explain in this video about a dispute over the domain name <itdc.com>, the panel said that the complainant only claimed rights to the ITDC trademark when it acquired its registration from another company in 2019 — but the <itdc.com> domain name was registered by the respondent the year before for use in connection with a company called Internet Tool & Die Company.
As a result, the UDRP panel found that the complainant failed to establish bad faith because it provided no "evidence… that ITDC was even a known or established mark in November 2018 when Respondent acquired the disputed domain name."
Therefore, the UDRP panel failed to find that the respondent had acted in bad faith and not only did it deny a transfer of the domain name, but it also found that the complainant had engaged in RDNH. Specifically, the panel wrote:
After over 20 years of UDRP jurisprudence, Complainant clearly ought to have known that it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of the facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the Complaint and that basing its complaint on the barest of allegations without any supporting evidence on what is essentially a trademark infringement dispute was doomed to fail and an abuse of the UDRP process.
At the end of the day, RDNH does not carry any direct consequences. The complainant didn’t have to pay any fines or even cover the respondent’s legal fees, and it isn’t precluded from using the UDRP process in the future. But it’s an embarrassing finding, a kind of public reprimand that all trademark owners should want to avoid.
