With the news out today that Lotto.com was saved in a UDRP complaint, though there was no finding of reverse domain name hijacking. There is an article published by Gerald M. Levine a few weeks back at IPlegalCorner.com that’s worth reading.
Mr. Levine takes a look back at the history of RDNH and provides some other stats on UDRP’s as a whole.
From the article:
Between 2000 and 2019 (with some dips) there has been a steady annual increase in the number of complaints and cybersquatting awards. While the number of denials has decreased (likely owing to increased understanding of what is required to prove cybersquatting), within that class the number of RDNHs has risen owing to the greater clarity coming from the reasoned decisions. In 2019 (through the date of this essay) there has been approximately 2250 disputes that have gone to award (out of approximately 2880 complaints filed) of which there were approximately 161 denials (7.2%), Of those denials there were 84 requests for RDNH of which Panels granted 34 (40.5%).
40.5% in 2019 vs 14% in 2000 seems like a step in the right direction. While some want a monetary award for a successful finding of RDNH, that would provide a slippery slope for domain investors when they lose a UDRP.
Like I’ve said before, I have experienced other forms of reverse hijacking. Target/Homegoods trademarked A dotcom name I purchased 6 years prior to their, first use claim. Grillology.com their claim of product introduction are totally false but they were granted trademarks on the name for several use categories. This from of reverse high jacking is never discussed in any forums. Please let your readers comment, I would be extremely interested to hear their thoughts.
Follow-up, I am a Tool And Die retiree from GM, Building grills and grill products for 30 years, I believe their product claim falsifications severely limit my ability to use the name or action it fairly.