Comments

• random 05:00 pm 25-Aug-2009 I'm going to ask, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking? In my opinion the Complainant "USU AG, Germany, represented by Hössle Kudlek & Partner, Patentanwälte, Germany" is clearly trying Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Why do you think RDNH was not discussed in this case? I copied a few lines from the above case to point out below. "conducted 10 years after registration of the disputed domain name " "The evidence in this case is more compelling than in many cases when a Paragraph 4(c) defence has succeeded." "Accordingly, the Complainant has failed to prove the second limb of Paragraph 4(a) and the Complaint must fail." "The evidence of the Respondent shows that it has been using the disputed domain name in connection with its business since shortly after the disputed domain name was registered in 1996. The evidence is clear from the registration of a trade name" "The Complainant’s trade mark registration in the United States occurred five years after the registration of the disputed domain name" "The Complainant’s trademark registration is, therefore, irrelevant to any consideration of bad faith registration." "It is not necessary to discuss the Policy requirement that bad faith registration must be proved separately from bad faith use since neither has been proved." "For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied."

• random 10:39 pm 25-Aug-2009 Why pay when one can just steal. Im sure in my opinion it was Reverse Domain Hijacking now. "Complainant contacted the Respondent" " the Complainant contacted the Respondent" "Respondent rejected" So the Complainant submitted a UDRP case to try and take the domain name because the Respondent didn't want to sell it. Case details spell out RDNH in my opinion. Why do Panel members rarely brand RDNH to these Complainants?