Also called RDNH · reverse hijacking
Reverse domain name hijacking, explained
The UDRP Rules define RDNH as using the policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name. Under paragraph 15(e), if a panel finds a complaint was brought in bad faith, for example as an RDNH attempt or primarily to harass the registrant, it must declare that the complaint was an abuse of the proceeding. The finding is a public declaration only: the UDRP imposes no fine and awards no costs.
Losing a case is not enough. According to the WIPO Overview 3.1, panels have found RDNH where the complainant knew or clearly should have known it could not succeed, for example because the domain was registered well before its trademark rights existed; where it gave false or intentionally incomplete evidence; where it filed after an unsuccessful attempt to buy the name, without a plausible legal basis; and where it relied on bare allegations. A respondent does not have to request the finding, and some panels hold represented complainants to a higher standard.
For an investor, the defense is evidence kept in advance. A response is due within 20 days of the proceeding's start, so keep proof of when and why you acquired each name, its generic or descriptive meaning, any earlier purchase approaches from the complainant, and the absence of trademark targeting. Panels look at the date you acquired the name, not its creation date. Consult a qualified attorney when a complaint arrives.
US law adds a remedy the UDRP lacks. Under 15 U.S.C. 1114(2)(D), a registrant whose name was suspended, disabled or transferred under a policy like the UDRP can sue to establish that its registration or use is not unlawful under US trademark law, and a person whose knowing and material misrepresentation caused the action can be liable for damages, costs and attorney's fees. A UDRP transfer decision is implemented after ten business days unless, within that window, the registrant files a lawsuit in an eligible court and sends the registrar proof of it.
Example. After its purchase offers were refused, a company filed a UDRP complaint against a dictionary-word .com registered years before its trademark, and the panel denied the complaint and declared reverse domain name hijacking.
Go deeper Is Domain Flipping Legal? Investing vs. Cybersquatting
Free to read, no signup. The list is for news of the course itself.
Join the waitlistSources
Education, not financial, legal or tax advice. Domain investing is speculative and most domain names never sell. Read the disclaimer.
