42:, wherein individuals hold many registered domain names containing famous third party trademarks with the intent of profiting by selling the domain names back to trademark owners. Trademark owners initially responded by filing cybersquatting lawsuits against registrants to enforce their trademark rights. However, as the number of cybersquatting incidents grew, trademark owners noticed that registrants would often settle their cases rather than litigate. Cybersquatting lawsuits are a defensive strategy to combat cybersquatting, however such lawsuits may also be used as a way of strongarming innocent domain name registrants into giving up domain names that the trademark owner is not, in fact, entitled to.
35:’s "cybersquatter" owner. This often intimidates domain name owners into transferring ownership of their domain names to trademark owners to avoid legal action, particularly when the domain names belong to smaller organizations or individuals. Reverse domain name hijacking is most commonly enacted by larger corporations and famous individuals, in defense of their rightful trademark or to prevent libel or slander.
196:
misconduct. Some courts award such fees where bad faith or baseless litigation is involved while other courts look for economic coercion or failure to reference controlling law. Nevertheless, due to the inherent animosity arising from being sued, courts generally hold prevailing defendants to a higher level of scrutiny, requiring vexatious or harassing conduct to shift attorney’s fees in their favor.
204:
Neither the UDRP nor the ACPA provides much deterrent to curb trademark owners’ abuse of their rights. To abate reverse domain name hijacking practices, some legal professionals believe
Congress should enact laws that are specifically designed to facilitate litigation against reverse cybersquatters.
191:
does not expressly recognize reverse domain name hijacking and often only limits defendants’ recovery to retention or transference of the domain name. It also fails to provide any remedies for victims of attempted reverse cybersquatting. However, the statute permits some monetary relief where bad
195:
Similarly, a 1975 amendment to the Lanham Act gives courts discretion in awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in “exceptional” circumstances. In attempting to define “exceptional,” Circuit courts are split as to what objectively constitutes malicious, fraudulent, or deliberate
59:,” resulting in panels often viewing parties’ factual discrepancies as indeterminable or immaterial at best. Therefore, despite its express recognition in the UDRP, reverse domain name hijacking findings are rare and based heavily on the factual circumstances surrounding each case.
205:
Similarly, some advocates argue for stronger penalties to deter the unlawful deprivation of validly registered domain names, such as fines and precluding offending trademark owners from filing cybersquatting claims for a designated period of time.
54:
Rules defines reverse domain name hijacking as the filing of a complaint in bad faith, resulting in the abuse of the UDRP administrative process. It becomes difficult to objectively quantify what constitutes subjective
170:
Although UDRP panelists currently have no tools by which to punish abuses such as
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, such a finding might be used in a local jurisdiction where such abuses might constitute a tort such as
484:
Christopher P. Bussert, Interpreting the “Exceptional Cases” Provision of
Section 117(a) of the Lanham Act: When an Award of Attorney’s Fees is Appropriate, 92 TRADEMARK REP. 1118, 1118-19 (2002).
230:
Warren B. Chik, Lord of Your Domain, But Master of None: The Need to
Harmonize and Recalibrate the Domain Name Regime of Ownership and Control, 16 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 8, 60 (2008) .
580:
689:
502:
Anne M. Mellen, Awarding
Attorneys’ Fees Under the Lanham Act: Egregious Litigation Conduct in the “Exceptional” Case, 74 U. CIN. L. REV. 1111, 1117 (2006).
694:
188:
79:
Where the
Complainant has attempted to deceive the domain owner or makes misrepresentations or fails to disclose material information to the panel.
328:
Int'l Driver
Training, Inc. v. Web Integrations, LLC and Comedy Driving Inc., D2009-0129 (WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, Apr. 9, 2009).
133:
76:
Where the
Complainant has used the UDRP as a Plan "B" option to attempt to secure the domain after commercial negotiations have broken off.
221:
Sallen v. Corinthians
Licenciamentos Ltda., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19976 (D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2000), rev’d, 273 F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 2001) .
466:
Frayne v. Chicago 2016, 2009 WL 65236 *2 (N.D. Ill. 2009); General Media Comm., Inc. v. Crazy Troll, LLC, 2007 WL 102988 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
105:
566:
299:
The smaller rightful domain owners are often intimidated by legal action and much of the time give up the rights to that domain.
139:
573:
127:
761:
159:
668:
176:
111:
73:
When the complaint has provided no evidence of bad faith registration or use directed towards the
Complainant.
643:
623:
590:
352:
117:
751:
380:
145:
437:
404:
366:
618:
172:
84:
663:
338:
756:
725:
699:
648:
88:
39:
163:(2000). A list of over one hundred reverse domain name hijacking decisions is available at
653:
673:
638:
633:
628:
613:
594:
28:
558:
513:
745:
720:
658:
70:
When the registration of the domain predates any trademark rights of the Complainant.
152:
192:
faith, reckless disregard or the willful violation of a court order are involved.
66:
panels as justification for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking includes:
715:
32:
38:
Reverse domain name "hijacking" is a legal remedy to counter the practice of
730:
493:
S. Rep. No. 93-1440, at 5 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7132, 7136.
56:
24:
286:
457:
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(2) (2006).
63:
51:
562:
275:
Schmidheiny v. Weber, 164 F.Supp.2d 484, 487 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
83:
Examples of such findings include the following WIPO cases:
23:
or commonly abbreviated as 'RDNH'), occurs where a rightful
92:
164:
85:
Sanofi SA vs. Monogram Naming LLC over domain Initiv.com
418:
287:"Domain Hijacking and the Risks it Poses to your Brand"
134:
FCC Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas vs. “FCC.COM”
708:
682:
601:
183:ACPA restrictions on reverse domain name hijacking
46:UDRP restrictions on reverse domain name hijacking
27:owner attempts to secure a domain name by making
106:Urban Logic, Inc. vs. Urban Logic, Peter Holland
690:Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy
574:
8:
514:"Reverse Domain Hijacking: Extreme Makeover"
695:Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
581:
567:
559:
438:"What is 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'?"
189:Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
140:Liquid Nutrition vs. liquidnutrition.com
405:"WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2000-1202"
381:"WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2002-0754"
367:"WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2008-0779"
353:"WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2010-1796"
339:"WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2013-0371"
214:
62:Circumstances which have been cited by
7:
128:Poker Host Inc. v. Russ “Dutch” Boyd
173:tortious interference with contract
14:
436:Doug Isenberg (19 October 2016).
101:Webpass, Inc. v. Paul Breitenbach
93:Formally RVKuhns and Associates
160:Deutsche Welle vs. DiamondWare
1:
155:) vs. Virtual Countries, Inc.
17:Reverse domain name hijacking
123:Hero v. The Heroic Sandwich
89:Gregory Ricks vs. RVK, Inc.
778:
669:Domain name front running
534:Chik, supra note 2 at 60.
112:David Robinson v. Brendan
721:"Catchall" typosquatting
609:Reverse domain hijacking
177:unfair business practice
97:Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.org
644:Domain name warehousing
624:Domain name speculation
151:Her Majesty the Queen (
50:Paragraph 15(e) of the
475:Id. at 1125(d)(2)(ii).
118:Decal v. Gregory Ricks
21:reverse cybersquatting
619:Domain name drop list
248:Sallen, supra note 1.
146:Rohl, LLC vs. ROHL SA
664:IDN homograph attack
726:Wildcard DNS record
700:PROTECT Act of 2003
649:Doppelganger domain
762:Domain Name System
739:
738:
31:claims against a
769:
583:
576:
569:
560:
553:
550:
544:
541:
535:
532:
526:
525:
523:
521:
509:
503:
500:
494:
491:
485:
482:
476:
473:
467:
464:
458:
455:
449:
448:
446:
444:
433:
427:
426:
415:
409:
408:
401:
395:
394:
392:
391:
377:
371:
370:
363:
357:
356:
349:
343:
342:
335:
329:
326:
320:
317:
311:
308:
302:
301:
296:
294:
285:Fridman, David.
282:
276:
273:
267:
264:
258:
255:
249:
246:
240:
237:
231:
228:
222:
219:
40:domain squatting
777:
776:
772:
771:
770:
768:
767:
766:
742:
741:
740:
735:
704:
678:
654:Type-in traffic
597:
587:
557:
556:
551:
547:
542:
538:
533:
529:
519:
517:
511:
510:
506:
501:
497:
492:
488:
483:
479:
474:
470:
465:
461:
456:
452:
442:
440:
435:
434:
430:
417:
416:
412:
403:
402:
398:
389:
387:
379:
378:
374:
365:
364:
360:
351:
350:
346:
337:
336:
332:
327:
323:
318:
314:
309:
305:
292:
290:
284:
283:
279:
274:
270:
265:
261:
256:
252:
247:
243:
238:
234:
229:
225:
220:
216:
211:
202:
185:
48:
19:(also known as
12:
11:
5:
775:
773:
765:
764:
759:
754:
744:
743:
737:
736:
734:
733:
728:
723:
718:
712:
710:
706:
705:
703:
702:
697:
692:
686:
684:
680:
679:
677:
676:
674:Drop registrar
671:
666:
661:
656:
651:
646:
641:
639:Domain tasting
636:
634:Domain parking
631:
629:Domain sniping
626:
621:
616:
614:Cybersquatting
611:
605:
603:
599:
598:
588:
586:
585:
578:
571:
563:
555:
554:
545:
536:
527:
512:Lewis, Brett.
504:
495:
486:
477:
468:
459:
450:
428:
410:
396:
372:
358:
344:
330:
321:
312:
303:
277:
268:
259:
250:
241:
232:
223:
213:
212:
210:
207:
201:
198:
184:
181:
81:
80:
77:
74:
71:
47:
44:
29:cybersquatting
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
774:
763:
760:
758:
755:
753:
752:Trademark law
750:
749:
747:
732:
729:
727:
724:
722:
719:
717:
714:
713:
711:
707:
701:
698:
696:
693:
691:
688:
687:
685:
681:
675:
672:
670:
667:
665:
662:
660:
659:Typosquatting
657:
655:
652:
650:
647:
645:
642:
640:
637:
635:
632:
630:
627:
625:
622:
620:
617:
615:
612:
610:
607:
606:
604:
600:
596:
592:
584:
579:
577:
572:
570:
565:
564:
561:
549:
546:
540:
537:
531:
528:
515:
508:
505:
499:
496:
490:
487:
481:
478:
472:
469:
463:
460:
454:
451:
439:
432:
429:
424:
420:
414:
411:
406:
400:
397:
386:
382:
376:
373:
368:
362:
359:
354:
348:
345:
340:
334:
331:
325:
322:
316:
313:
307:
304:
300:
289:. BrandShield
288:
281:
278:
272:
269:
263:
260:
254:
251:
245:
242:
236:
233:
227:
224:
218:
215:
208:
206:
199:
197:
193:
190:
182:
180:
178:
174:
168:
166:
162:
161:
156:
154:
148:
147:
142:
141:
136:
135:
130:
129:
124:
120:
119:
114:
113:
108:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
78:
75:
72:
69:
68:
67:
65:
60:
58:
53:
45:
43:
41:
36:
34:
30:
26:
22:
18:
608:
589:Domain name
548:
539:
530:
518:. Retrieved
507:
498:
489:
480:
471:
462:
453:
441:. Retrieved
431:
422:
413:
399:
388:. Retrieved
385:www.wipo.int
384:
375:
361:
347:
333:
324:
315:
306:
298:
291:. Retrieved
280:
271:
262:
253:
244:
235:
226:
217:
203:
200:Implications
194:
186:
169:
158:
153:Elizabeth II
150:
144:
138:
132:
126:
122:
116:
110:
104:
100:
96:
82:
61:
49:
37:
20:
16:
15:
716:Domain hack
591:speculation
516:. DNJournal
443:17 December
33:domain name
757:Cybercrime
746:Categories
520:22 October
390:2023-11-20
293:22 October
209:References
95:) (2015).
731:Fast flux
709:Technical
57:bad faith
25:trademark
423:rdnh.com
165:rdnh.com
149:(2006),
143:(2007),
137:(2007),
131:(2008),
125:(2008),
121:(2008),
115:(2008),
109:(2009),
103:(2010),
99:(2013),
87:(2022).
602:General
595:parking
419:"Home"
175:or an
157:, and
683:Legal
593:and
522:2014
445:2018
295:2014
187:The
64:WIPO
52:UDRP
552:Id.
543:Id.
319:Id.
310:Id.
266:Id.
257:Id.
239:Id.
748::
421:.
383:.
297:.
179:.
167:.
582:e
575:t
568:v
524:.
447:.
425:.
407:.
393:.
369:.
355:.
341:.
91:(
55:“
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.