…yet it wasn’t even considered.
Everything about the cybersquatting complaint Petrofac Services Limited filed against Petrofac Qatar WLL over the domain name petrofac-qatar.com screams “reverse domain name hijacking.”
The respondent clearly has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It’s the name of its business.
Furthermore, the complainant omitted key information from its complaint, including that it sued the respondent over its trade name…and lost.
It also gave misleading information to the panel about the respondent’s request for $3 million to sell the domain name.
As I read the UDRP, it seemed that the panel was laying out all of the details for finding reverse domain name hijacking. It even considered the issue of registration in bad faith despite noting that it didn’t have to since it found rights or legitimate
So imagine my surprise when I scrolled to the bottom of the decision and RDNH wasn’t even discussed.
Robert A. Badgley, Presiding Panelist, didn’t even consider Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in this case.
Why does that come as no surprise?
In the “YourNeighborhood.co owner tries to pull a fast one in UDRP” case
http://www.domainnamewire.com/2014/10/20/yourneighborhood-co-owner-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one-in-udrp/ even though WIPO sole panelist Robert A. Badgley admitted that the complainant was trying to “pull a fast one”, he didn’t even consider Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Do WIPO review panelists’ decisions? Does WIPO care? Does anyone care? Yawn!
Rosanne Blake says
Another Robert A. Badgley decision. This time re: domain name movius.com which should have been a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision.
Here is the DomainNameWire news story:
“Movius.com UDRP denied, but how is it not RDNH? “
Do we see a pattern emerging with Robert A. Badgley decisions?