Featured Domains


Minnesota Company Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

3DCafe, Inc. found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

A three person National Arbitration Forum panel has called out 3DCafe, Inc. for attempted reverse domain name hijacking in a case over 3DCafe.com.

The complainant argued that it had rights from its “predecessor in interest” for the term 3DCafe dating back to 1991. But the domain name owner, with the help of attorney Ari Goldberger, poked holes in the complainant’s arguments.

The panel determined that 3DCafe, Inc. and its lawyer Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould had provided scant evidence of any sort of common law rights to the mark when the domain name was registered. While not invoking the doctrine of laches, the panel also cited New York Times Co. v. Name Administration Inc. and the significant delay between when the domain was registered and when the case was filed.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:

In the present circumstances, the lack of a trademark, the delay by the Complainant and the fact that the Complainant itself showed no evidence of any right to any common law rights to a mark, all combine to infer that the Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

The most in-depth analysis of the global domain market

Get Our Newsletter

Stay up-to-date with the latest analysis and news about the domain name industry by joining our mailing list.

No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Reader Interactions


    Leave a Comment

  1. todaro says

    ooooooooooh… found guilty with no penalty. note to beckstrom: anyone found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking be fined $100,000. $20,000 to go to the respondant. $30,000 to go to the arbitrator making the finding and $50,000 to be split evenly among the directors of icaan… unless you want to give ringo less, i don’t know how that works.

  2. John Berryhill says

    I believe Ari has obtained more RDNH rulings on behalf of his clients than anyone by a wide margin.

    Great work.

  3. 3dcafe.com says

    Yes the domain did expire because they lock the domain while I was being hijacked. It is unfortunate that I had to pay out money to defend my domain with no cosequence to the party trying to take my domain, however most lawsuits are done in the same fashion. I am very greatful to Ari and the just decision by the panel.

  4. S says

    Great decision, unfortunately it has no teeth to deter further wastes of time and money. Looks like almost everyone one benefits except the legitimate owner. Other than keeping the domain that was obviously theirs.

  5. Zak says

    Reverse Rubbish Again:

    So why don’t the great mentioned lawyers petition the courts for a remedy to the above mentioned recurring short comings …

    Whats a matter not enough money in it for you?

  6. Mollie Rowe says

    I have to agree with torado, without a fine/penalty the finding of reverse hijacking is useless. If one is not held responsible for his actions, then one can keep doing what one wants.

  7. Dave Zan says

    While not as “heavy” as a financial penalty against this, how about subsequent barring from filing any UDRP action in WIPO, NAF, etc? Might be a tad harsh, but how else to get certain parties to think twice about planning to do what’s arguably a reverse hijacking?

Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
%d bloggers like this: