Featured Domains


HeadKandy.com: why no reverse domain name hijacking?

Case was dead on arrival but panelist didn’t consider reverse domain name hijacking.

Head Kandy, LLC filed a cybersquatting complaint against HeadKandy.com.

National Arbitration Forum UDRP panelist Eugene I. Low has correctly decided in favor of the owner of HeadKandy.com in a cybersquatting complaint, but I’m perplexed why he didn’t consider reverse domain name hijacking.

Head Kandy, LLC filed the complaint. The company started using the Head Kandy mark in 2015 and uses the domain HeadKandyPro.com. The owner of HeadKandy.com registered the domain in 2006. According to Low’s decision, the Complainant knew that the domain owner formerly used the disputed domain name to sell its own “Head Kandy” hair extensions, but such use ceased in 2013.

In other words, the Complainant admitted that a) the domain owner had rights or legitimate interests in the domain and b) it wasn’t registered in bad faith.

Nevertheless, Low did not consider if it was a case of reverse domain name hijacking. The domain owner hired counsel to defend the domain name. At a minimum, it would have been nice for the panelist to admonish the Complainant for filing a complaint that was dead on arrival.

DomainAgents. What should you sell your domain for? Read our Domain Market Report Now. Sponsored.

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. UDRP watcher says

    The Complainant Head Kandy, LLC was represented by Gabriel Groisman of Groisman Law, PLLC, Florida, USA.

    Groisman Law are experts saying:
    Groisman Law’s experienced trademark litigators have the strength and experience to aggressively defend your mark through cease and desist letters, early negotiated resolutions, or aggressive federal litigation – always keeping your goals and objectives front and center.

    In the summing up panelist Eugene I. Low said respondent registered the headkandy.com domain name in 2006, which predates Complainant’s interest or use in the HEAD KANDY mark in 2015 by nine years. Generally speaking, in the absence of contrary evidence, a domain name could not have been registered in bad faith if at that time the complainant’s mark had yet to be in existence. This is because the domain name registrant could not have entertained bad faith intentions respecting the mark because it could not have contemplated Complainant’s then non-existent rights.

    Expert Gabriel Groisman of Groisman Law therefore would have known or should have known that their case was a loser the minute it was filed.

    So why no RDNH, panelist Eugene I. Low?

    Couldn’t be bothered?

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