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
From CCH to ChatGPT: How Canadian Copyright Law Played the Key Role in Deciding a Leading AI Training Data Case in India 
Starting Over: Court Filing Confirms the CRTC’s Streamer Contribution Decisions Are Dead With a Full Online Streaming Act Reset to Come 
The Name on the Window Was Enough: The Attacks on Kiva’s and the Normalization of Antisemitic Violence in Canada 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 277: Kate Robertson on the Risks That Lie Behind Canada’s Unexpected Signing of the UN Cybercrime Convention 
A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: The Trouble With Canada’s Quiet Decision to Sign the UN Cybercrime Convention
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.