UDRP Perspectives All Topics

4.1 Obligation of Panelists to Consider RDNH

Declarations of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking play a critical role in the UDRP by deterring abusive use of the Policy and preserving the integrity of the UDRP for legitimate claims. A Panel will not have satisfactorily discharged its duty under the UDRP without an express consideration of RDNH where the facts and circumstances warrant. This is so, not just because of Rule 15(e) which requires a Panel to consider RDNH, but also because RDNH is essentially a kind of “counterclaim” that the Respondent is entitled to adjudication of. Indeed, it has been considered expressly “unfair” to deprive a Respondent of the adjudication of its request for a finding of RDNH – even when the Complainant purports to withdraw its Complaint, as the parties are to be treated “equally” under Paragraph 10(b) of the Rules. Even when RDNH is not expressly requested by a Respondent – indeed even in ‘no response’ cases – a Panelist must still consider RDNH where appropriate. Where an RDNH request or circumstance exists, a Complainant may not even be permitted to withdraw its Complaint and thereby avoid an RDNH finding.

Additional Information

Relevant Decisions

Resource Interactive v. IBM Corporation / International Business Machines Corporation, Forum FA2501002137992, <resourceinteractive. com> and <resource. com>, Denied, RDNH

Although Respondent has not explicitly requested a finding of RDNH, Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules grants the Panel the authority to make such a determination on its own initiative: “If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.” Complainant cannot justify its actions by claiming ignorance of the Policy or well-established UDRP case law. While parties are free to represent themselves in UDRP proceedings, they must also accept the consequences of failing to seek appropriate legal counsel. This is particularly relevant given that the Policy has been in place for 25 years and UDRP panel decisions are publicly available.

Daily Workout Apps, LLC v. Abhinash Reddy Bellamkonda / MYRALABS LIMITED, Forum FA2404002091710, <dailyworkouts.com>, Denied, RDNH

Although Respondent did not specifically seek a finding of RDNH, “it is not necessary for a respondent to seek an RDNH finding or prove the presence of conduct constituting RDNH.”  WIPO Overview 4.16. Rather, it is the Panel’s obligation to enter a finding of RDNH when the evidence supports such a finding.

Neurocog Pty Ltd v. Domain Administrator, CentralNic Ltd, WIPO D2024-1076, <neurocog.com>, Denied, RDNH, No Response

It is the Panel’s obligation to consider whether a finding of RDNH is appropriate even if the Respondent has not requested such a finding, and even in the absence of a Response.

Innoviti Technologies Private Limited v. Richard Cardenas, INNOVITI S.A.S., WIPO DCO2023-0108, Denied, RDNH, No Response

The Panel is unfortunately left with the distinct impression that the Complainant and/or its representatives will have been well aware that the Respondent’s Website indicated the Respondent was carrying out a bona fide business and chose not to tell the Panel that was the case.  The Panel should be able to rely upon the certification given in the Complaint and deplores what appears to be an attempt to mislead the Panel.  The only sanction available to the Panel is to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and the Panel so finds.

Everiii & Partners International Co. Ltd. v. Nien Chen, Hearty Creative Inc., ADNDRC HK-2301847, <startupislandtaiwan.com>, Denied with RDNH

The Complainant cannot even justify itself saying, for example, that it ignored the Policy and the well-established UDRP case law. Parties are free to self-represent themselves in UDRP disputes, but they also have to bear the consequences of not seeking appropriate legal counsel. This is particularly true considering that the Policy has been in place for 25 years and the decisions rendered by UDRP panels are publicly available.

Vantage Solutions, LLC v. zhu yan, FA2312002076392, <knp376.com>, Denied, RDNH, No Response

The Respondent did not reply to this Complaint. However the failures in this Complaint inevitably bring considerations of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking into question.

Digest Commentary