Welcome to the Hall of Shame. This page will display the names of Complainants who an auDRP Panel has found to have engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). This page has been inspired by HallofShame.com.
RDNH is becoming more prevalent as the availability and cost of premium domain names makes them harder to secure.
What is RDNH ?
The auDRP defines RDNH as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name.”. This usually happens when a Complainant has been unwilling to buy a domain name from the owner.
The auDRP Overview summarises instances which may amount to RDNH which include (where the complainant):
- knew it didn’t have right in a trade mark or name upon which it relied but still made the complaint;
- was aware by the time the complaint was filed, had been informed of and had otherwise became aware of all the facts necessary, to determine that the domain name owner had legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute;
- had in communications with the domain name owner, acknowledged that the respondent had rights to the domain name;
- had knowledge of the domain name owners rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and engaged in harassment or similar conduct in the face of such knowledge (such as repeated threatening legal letters);
- known from the beginning that its rights in the domain name were not exclusive, that the domain name was generic, and that the domain name described the activities for which the domain name owner used it;
- knew that its trade mark was limited to a narrow class of goods / services, and that the domain name owner’s registration and use of the domain name could not, under any fair interpretation of the facts, constitute bad faith;
- intentionally attempted to mislead the panel by omitting relevant evidence.
Below is a current list of Complainants who have been found to have engaged in RDNH, Shame on Them.
Hall of Shame Members
Adjudicate Today Pty Limited – WIPO Case No. DAU2012-0033
Represented by: Moray & Agnew*
Cairns Airport Pty Ltd – WIPO Case No. DAU2013-0023
Represented by: McCullough Robertson Lawyers*
Paessler AG – WIPO Case No. DAU2015-0030
Represented by: IP Service International Pty Ltd*
Carman’s Fine Foods Pty Ltd – WIPO Case No. DAU2015-0041
Represented by: Ampersand Legal*
Orient Express Travel Group Pty Ltd – WIPO Case No. DAU2015-0004
Represented by: Norgate McLean Dolphin*
Private Care Pty. Ltd. v. Webguide Solutions Pty. Ltd. t/a GD Net, on behalf of Daughterly Care Pty. Ltd
Represented by: Ms. Reichel Cheslett*
Makegoods Pty Limited / Niche Group Holdings Pty Limited v. Zoran Petkovic, GMP Constructions Pty Ltd
Represented by Clarifis Intellectual Property*
Three Best Rated Pty Ltd v Signature Profit LLC
City of Parramatta Council v Publishing Australia Pty Ltd
Represented by Anisimoff Legal
Affirm, Inc. v. Internet Products Sales & Services Pty Ltd
Represented by DLA Piper Australia
*Unless expressed otherwise in a decision, no adverse finding was made against the lawyers /representatives who represented these Complainants.