Answer: when the UDRP panelist fails to address it.
Some cybersquatting cases under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) are bad. Some are so egregious that you wonder how much research the Complainant did before fiing the case.
Such is the case with a recent dispute over Duggan.com.
The Complainant, who was represented by counsel, argued that Thomas Duggan was cybersquatting with the domain name he registered in 1995 because:
- Complainant has also been forced to register the duggan.cc domain name because the .com was taken.
- Respondent’s only use of the Domain Name was to maintain an email address.
- Respondent failed to enter into negotiations to sell the domain to Complainant.
I’m not kidding. These are all stated in the panelist’s UDRP decision.
Obviously, the panelist did not find that the domain was registered and used in bad faith.
What’s unfortunate is that panelist Nicolas Smith did not consider reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH). Thomas Duggan had to take the time to defend his domain name against a case that had no chance of succeeding under UDRP.
I doubt that the Respondent asked for RDNH, but a panelist should always consider it when the Respondent prevails in a case.