Some panelists are afraid to find RDNH

I can’t believe this panelist didn’t find RDNH.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has found in favor of the owner of CAGI.com in a cybersquatting complaint but, for some mysterious reason, failed to find reverse domain name hijacking.

CSP International Fashion Group S.p.A., which owns CAGI.eu, filed the dispute against Capitol Appraisal Group.

Capitol Appraisal Group registered the domain name in 1995 and uses the domain for its business.

Here’s what panelist Dawn Osborne considered when finding that the case was not reverse domain name hijacking:

Nevertheless, a finding of reverse domain name hijacking involves some notion of wrongdoing or bad faith on the part of the Complainant. The panelist is not prepared to go this far as the extent of the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests were not known to the Complainant who may have brought the Complaint in good faith. Therefore the Panel declines to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

The extent of the respondent’s rights and legitimate interests were not known? OK, ask your child to take a look at the website at CAGI.com:

Ask them if it looks like a company is using the domain for its business.

The law firm representing the complainant, Rödl & Partner, was also not found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in the recent case for MyBoutique.com.

They are losing cases but getting rather lucky on RDNH findings.