A CIRA domain name dispute resolution panel has issued the first clear finding of reverse hijacking (essentially a bad faith complaint). The case involved the forsale.ca domain.
CIRA Domain Name Dispute Panel Finds Reverse Hijacking
2 Comments
Recent Posts
The Hidden Lawful Access Tradeoff: How Bill C-22 Lowers the Evidentiary Standards for Police Access to Subscriber Information 
The Lawful Access Privacy Risks: Unpacking Bill C-22’s Expansive Metadata Retention Requirements 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 261: Ian Goldberg on the Privacy Risks of Age Assurance Technologies 
Government Enacts Political Party Anti-Privacy Rules With Bill C-4 Royal Assent Sprint 
A Tale of Two Bills: Lawful Access Returns With Changes to Warrantless Access But Dangerous Backdoor Surveillance Risks Remain
runescape gold
Buy runescape accounts as low Pirce! We never rest so that we can offer you the best. We’re here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Get the most out of your game time and level with the best!
Reverse Domain Hijacking Ruling
I find it interesting that it took the better part of a decade for panelists presiding over the Canadian domain name dispute resolution process to return a decision of reverse domain name hijacking and somewhat ironic that they chose to do so in an instance where the complainant actually owned a registered trademark interest in a term that was by any definition confusingly similar. I am not questioning the correctness of the ruling per se, I am merely suggesting that this case may well go down in history as the only case ever to be decided under the CDRP (UDRP or NAF for that matter)in which a decision of reverse domain name hijacking was rendered where the complainant had a certified trademark interest.