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
Who Is the Government Really Backing With Bill C-18?: Rejected Online News Outlet Amendment Tells the Story 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 148: Christelle Tessono on Bringing a Human Rights Lens to AI Regulation in Bill C-27 
Dismissing Digital News Outlets: Liberal MP Claims Online News Services Don’t Report News 
No Billion Dollar Bonus: Officials Admit Most Bill C-11 Funding Isn’t New and Will Still Be Controlled by Foreign Streamers 
Freedom of Expression is Not A Loophole: Responding to the Government’s Inaccurate Defence of Mandated Payments for Links in Bill C-18
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.