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 239: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Digital Services Tax
byMichael Geist

June 30, 2025
Michael Geist
June 23, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
Risky Business: The Legal and Privacy Concerns of Mandatory Age Verification Technologies
Another Canadian Digital Policy Own Goal: Corporate TikTok Ban Leads to Millions in Lost Cultural Group Support
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 239: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Digital Services Tax
Canada’s DST Debacle a Case Study of Digital Strategy Trouble
Canadian Government Caves on Digital Services Tax After Years of Dismissing the Risks of Trade Retaliation
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.