One panelist calls it a “clear” case of RDNH, two others decline to find RDNH.
A lot of reverse domain name hijacking decisions have been handed down in UDRP cases this week. Surprisingly, the majority of panelists in a dispute over CLH.com did not find the filing an abuse of the proceedings, and their reason is even more surprising.
Compañía Logística de Hidrocarburos CLH S.A. filed the case against a domain name investor who acquired CLH.com in July 2017.
The complainant had been trying to buy the domain since 2015 before the current owner bought it for $32,000. After multiple failed purchase attempts if filed the UDRP.
In the decision, panelists Clive N.A. Trotman and Reyes Campello Estebaranz discussed how the case has many of the hallmarks of RDNH: the complainant tried to buy the domain and filed a UDRP when it couldn’t, and CLH is a common acronym.
But they decided against RDNH, writing “Alternative views as to the legitimacy of speculation in domain name have been debated since the early days of the Policy…” Click here to continue reading…