Core Diagnostics of Gurgaon, India has just been found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) on the UDRP it filed on the domain name corediagnostics.com by a one member WIPO panel.
Core Diangostics was represented by in-house council.
Here are the relevant facts and findings by the one member panel:
The Complainant first started business in 2011.
It registered its trademarks in 2012.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2001 and has been using it since then to promote various medical diagnostic products.
“The Respondent notes that he registered the disputed domain name in 2001, and has been using it since then to promote various medical diagnostic products, while the Complainant started its business in 2011 and first applied for its trademark in 2012. ”
“Because the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name predates the Complainant’s mark, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not have registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.”
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.
The Respondent invokes this provision when he requests the Panel to find that the Complainant is using the Policy in a bad faith attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name.
“Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.”
“The Respondent notes that his registration of the disputed domain name far predates Complainant’s claim of rights in the CORE DIAGNOSTICS mark.
“The Complainant knew this because it produced the WhoIs record for the disputed domain name as an attachment to its Complaint.
“Thus the Complainant should have known that it was unable to prove that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
“This suffices to establish Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.”
“Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to hijack the Respondent’s domain name.”