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