This case follows the classic “Plan B” reverse domain name hijacking pattern.

A question mark on a chalkboard

A National Arbitration Forum panelist has denied a cybersquatting claim against the domain name, but for some reason, didn’t consider if it was a case of reverse domain name hijacking.

According to the decision, the domain owner registered the domain name in 2000 and has used it in commerce. The Complainant’s first rights in the Gropod name

date to 2018. Furthermore, the Complainant admitted in the case that it has been trying to acquire the domain. It has offered $1,000; the owner eventually offered to sell it for $20,000.

Based on the published decision, this is a classic “Plan B” reverse domain name hijacking case.

It doesn’t appear that the domain owner was represented by counsel and probably didn’t ask the panelist, Héctor Ariel Manoff, to find reverse domain name hijacking. Still, a panelist should consider it when the details follow this case pattern.


Post link: Why wasn’t this reverse domain name hijacking?

© 2022. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact editor (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Original article: Why wasn’t this reverse domain name hijacking?

©2022 Domain Observer. All Rights Reserved.