Reverse Domain Hijacking

WIPO Decision Over “INBAY.COM” Finds Reverse Domain Hijacking

A decision rendered by a WIPO panel yesterday over the domain name found the Complainant guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). One of the interesting aspects of the case was the the panel's view of the Complainant's "surreptitious" efforts to purchase the domain name via unidentified employees.

By | April 8, 2014|

The Vitamin Shoppe Loses UDRP For – No Reverse Domain Hijacking

Vitamin Shoppe Indus., (Complainant) the owners of the trademark THE VITAMIN SHOPPE in the U.S. (and all over the world) lost a UDRP decision before the National Arbitration Forum ("NAF") over the domain name which is owned by Kosher Vitamin Express.

By | January 23, 2013|

UDRP Decision For Brings “New Potential” Interpretation of UDRP Law

Because UDRP decisions are based on the three static criteria (similarity, legitimate rights, and bad faith) most of the arguments that a rights holder will make in support of their position to transfer or cancel a domain name are common and often recycled throughout UDRP law

By | October 15, 2012| UDRP Decision Tackles Complex Issues

In a decision released by the National Arbitration Forum ("NAF") earlier today a UDRP panel denied the Complainant, Max Mara Fashion Group's, bid to transfer the domain Max Mara owns the mark PERSONA for clothing (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 1,207,303). Overall, the case is instructive on the issues of laches, claim preclusion and how generic terms may legitimately be used in association with certain types of advertising websites.

By | October 10, 2012|

Claim Denied in UDRP for

The Complainant in a UDRP action that sought to recover the domain names,, and was denied transfer of the domains and found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

By | August 16, 2012|