Infiniti Retail Limited of Mumbai, India, represented by Anand & Anand, India was just found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
We don’t need to bore you with the details.
The domain name was registered on October 3, 1996 some 17 years ago, for use in connection with a business called Croma Web Services which operated from or around February 1997.
This website subsequently became inactive around February 2011.
On the Issue of RDNH:
“The Panel finds as a fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name approximately ten years prior to the Complainant’s commencement of its business in India. Even had the Complainant’s submission been correct that the disputed domain name was registered in 2001, this would still have pre-dated the Complainant’s business start-up and the registration of its marks by many years.”
“As a result the Panel finds it impossible that the Respondent, operating in the United States could have registered the disputed domain name in bad faith where the Complainant’s Indian business and marks did not even exist at the date of registration.”
“The Panel finds it difficult to believe that the Complainant, who is represented by expert counsel, was not advised accordingly. ”
“In these circumstances the Complaint should never have been made as, even on the most cursory review and even without any substantial investigation of the Respondent’s past use of the disputed domain name, it should have been apparent that the Complaint could never have been successful under the third element, quite apart from the second element of the Policy.”
“The Panel finds that the Complaint was an unnecessary imposition upon the Respondent and an abuse of the Policy. ”
“There is moreover no evidence before the Panel that the Complainant ever previously communicated with the Respondent, whether concerning an alleged infringement of its rights, or with regard to commercial acquisition of the disputed domain name. It appears to the Panel that the Complaint was simply brought in an attempt to obtain a domain name that the Complainant decided after the fact it would like to own for its own business purposes. In these circumstances the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Complaint amounts to an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking.”