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
April 23, 2009
Share this post
2 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 272: Build Canada’s Lucy Hargreaves on Canada’s AI Strategy and the Need to Shift From Being Users to Builders
byMichael Geist

May 25, 2026
Michael Geist
May 11, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Midnight Madness: The Government Rushes Lawful Access Bill Through the House Without Debate or a Recorded Vote
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Bill C-36 Modernizes Canada’s Privacy Law, Then Delays It to 2030
Gary Anandasangaree’s Vic Toews Moment Shows the Government Has Lost Its Way on Lawful Access
Government Moves to Shut Down Lawful Access Hearing In Order To Fast Track Passing the Bill This Week
Canada’s Digital Super-Regulator: Bill C-36 Pushes Out the Privacy Commissioner and Hands Private Sector Privacy to an Overloaded Commission

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.