Reverse Domain Name Hijackings 2000-2013. All 143 Cases Sorted by Year.

Morning Folks,

The gamble is still in their favor but our job is to skewer the folks so bad that any rational person or entity would think twice before trying to STEAL the property of others by abusing the system. These cases are all OUTRAGEOUS! Many of the attorneys were complicit with this scheme and they too should and are being outed.

I want to thank Nat Cohen for allowing me to republish his RDNH.COM list of ALL known Reverse Domain Name Hijacking cases. I am hoping to include the company and the attorney when I have some time. 2002 saw the most RDNH cases with 20. So far in 2013 we have 13 such findings as compared to 14 for all of 2012.

The list below has no emotion. Just the links and the facts. Leave it to me to provide the commentary.

What can you do? CIRCULATE!! Tweet, Like, Share! Or don't complain.

Rick Schwartz






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Domain Venue Case Number/Reason Decision Date
qtrade.com eResolution AF-0169 6/19/2000
k2r.com WIPO D2000-0622 8/23/2000
safaricasino.com eResolution AF-2088 10/4/2000
smartdesign.com WIPO D2000-0993 10/18/2000
ezstreet.net WIPO legitimate interest - complainant knew 11/13/2000
tradesite.com eResolution AF-0473 12/15/2000
dw.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; delay 1/2/2001
goldline.com WIPO D2000-1151 1/4/2001
onu.com eResolution AF-0672 2/16/2001
ode.com WIPO D2001-0074 5/1/2001
moneyplanet.com/travelplanet.com WIPO D2001-0217 5/7/2001
formulationworkstation.com WIPO legitimate interest - complainant knew 6/18/2001
armani.com WIPO misrepresentation 7/20/2001
itmetrixx.com WIPO D2001-0668 8/2/2001
cream.com WIPO TM - not valid; deception; legitimate rights - complainant knew 9/28/2001
maggi.com WIPO D2001-0916 10/12/2001
aspengrove.com WIPO TM - not valid; domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew 10/17/2001
intelilink.com NAF FA0109000100124 11/5/2001
thefetishfactory.com NAF FA0108000099610 11/8/2001
torres.com WIPO D2001-1200 12/19/2001
pizzashoppe.com WIPO D2001-1353 1/11/2002
supremo.com WIPO D2001-1357 2/15/2002
prom.com WIPO D2001-1154 3/4/2002
arche.com NAF plan "B" 3/13/2002
goodtidings.com NAF FA0203000105749 4/9/2002
curbking.com NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; misrepresentation 5/10/2002
paparazzo.com WIPO D2002-0189 5/29/2002
innovativemerchantsolutions.biz and others NAF prior court case; harassment 6/4/2002
ntmailserver.com WIPO D2002-0277 6/24/2002
scubadiving.biz WIPO DBIZ2002-00153 6/28/2002
imode.biz WIPO DBIZ2002-00141 6/30/2002
hemp.biz NAF (STOP) misrepresentation 7/9/2002
ikb.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew 7/23/2002
411.biz WIPO TM - not valid; deception 8/2/2002
shoes.biz WIPO DBIZ2002-00245 8/12/2002
sfm.com WIPO D2002-0535 9/13/2002
picoliter.com NAF FA0208000122205 10/23/2002
windsor.com WIPO D2002-0839 11/14/2002
dvla.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; plan "B" 11/27/2002
newzealand.com WIPO D2002-0754 11/27/2002
centrelecorbusier.com and others WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew 4/7/2003
nishan.com WIPO D2003-0204 5/1/2003
futureworld.com WIPO bad faith - no evidence 7/18/2003
netdeposit.com WIPO D2003-0365 7/22/2003
usdocuments.com WIPO D2003-0583 9/17/2003
policeauction.com NAF TM - not valid; domain first 3/9/2004
carsales.com WIPO domain first; misrepresentation 4/8/2004
carbwatchers.com NAF domain first 5/28/2004
stmoritz.com WIPO D2004-0158 6/14/2004
mexico.com WIPO D2004-0242 7/19/2004
gtatravels.com WIPO D2004-0741 12/16/2004
kiwi.com WIPO D2004-0848 1/4/2005
mess.com WIPO D2004-0964 1/25/2005
mountainviewcountryclub.com NAF domain first; TM - not valid; misrepresentation 3/28/2005
multicast.com NAF domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew; misrepresentation 4/28/2005
aljazeera.com WIPO domain first; delay; bad faith - no evidence 7/19/2005
itravelinsured.com NAF FA0508000545210 10/11/2005
primalquest.com WIPO D2005-1083 12/15/2005
aroma.com NAF domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew 1/16/2006
penthouseboutique.com NAF misrepresentation 5/26/2006
downunder.travel WIPO TM - not valid; misrepresentation 6/6/2006
rohl.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew 7/12/2006
dreamgirls.com WIPO domain first; delay 8/10/2006
trailblazer.com WIPO D2006-0875 8/25/2006
proto.com WIPO D2006-0905 10/10/2006
zounds.com NAF TM - not valid; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence 11/24/2006
primeconnections.com NAF domain first; TM - not valid 12/18/2006
cbpublishing.com NAF deception; misrepresentation; TM - not valid 4/18/2007
superblock.com NAF misrepresentation; TM - not valid; domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew 9/11/2007
fcc.com WIPO legitimate interest - complainant knew; misrepresentation 10/7/2007
mycpa.com WIPO D2007-1171 10/12/2007
onephone.com WIPO D2007-1576 12/22/2007
rebelde.com WIPO D2007-1525 12/27/2007
liquidnutrition.com WIPO D2007-1598 1/28/2008
ironarc.com WIPO D2007-1611 1/29/2008
enki.com NAF domain first 3/28/2008
modularsdirect.com and other NAF domain first 4/8/2008
decal.com WIPO domain first; bad faith - no evidence 6/11/2008
altru.net NAF misrepresentation 7/15/2008
sfm.com NAF FA0805001183176 7/25/2008
collectivemedia.com WIPO domain first 7/31/2008
hero.com WIPO D2008-0779 8/13/2008
porta-jon.com WIPO D2008-1043 8/22/2008
onemodels.com WIPO D2008-1173 10/24/2008
my-life.com WIPO D2008-1313 10/27/2008
pokerhost.net WIPO D2008-1518 12/1/2008
made-from-india.com/indiamart.com NAF TM - not valid; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence 2/18/2009
mathieson.com WIPO D2009-0087 3/23/2009
versacapital.com NAF FA0903001250988 4/14/2009
mirabella.com WIPO D2009-0673 7/29/2009
長江.com (YangtzeRiver).com WIPO D2009-0540 7/29/2009
urbanlogic.com WIPO D2009-0862 8/17/2009
hotcam.com NAF FA0907001273417 8/24/2009
lincs.com NAF FA0907001273907 9/3/2009
rain.com NAF FA0908001279419 9/29/2009
bwired.com WIPO domain first 10/16/2009
bsa.com NAF TM - not valid; domain first; bad faith - no evidence 11/19/2009
ardyssbodymagicshop.com NAF misrepresentation 1/14/2010
realtyalliance.com NAF FA0912001296997 2/12/2010
adventurerv.com NAF bad faith - no evidence 5/3/2010














































































































































































































































































































Domain Venue Case Number/Reason Decision Date
kokeshi.com WIPO D2010-0606 6/10/2010
genomatix.com WIPO bad faith - no evidence 7/8/2010
tinyprint.com NAF domain first 10/8/2010
virtualexpo.com WIPO domain first 10/8/2010
energyfix.com NAF domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; delay 10/22/2010
xpand.com WIPO D2010-1519 11/16/2010
webpass.com WIPO D2010-1796 12/2/2010
3dcafe.com NAF TM - not valid 12/20/2010
cinemacity.com WIPO domain first 2/2/2011
pokersrategy.com and others WIPO D2011-0005 3/8/2011
shoeby.com WIPO misrepresentation; legitimate rights - complainant knew 3/20/2011
streetwave.com CAC 100220 4/8/2011
viking.org NAF FA1104001383534 5/31/2011
futuris.com WIPO D2011-0596 6/20/2011
unive.com WIPO D2011-0636 6/30/2011
iuno.com WIPO bad faith - no evidence; domain first 7/4/2011
shoppingdopovo.com WIPO D2011-0734 7/18/2011
maisonduemonde.com WIPO D2011-0956 7/28/2011
fedtax.com NAF legitimate interest - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; delay 9/29/2011
w59.com NAF FA1110001413550 11/30/2011
ecase.com NAF domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence 12/1/2011
planate.com WIPO D2011-1535 12/6/2011
hooman.com NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; domain first 4/16/2012
dextra.com WIPO plan "B"; misrepresentation; bad faith - no evidence 4/19/2012
edgepos.com WIPO domain first; bad faith - no evidence 4/21/2012
elk.com WIPO domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; plan "B" 5/14/2012
saveme.com WIPO D2012-0498 5/31/2012
etatil.com WIPO domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew 6/23/2012
mamamayi.com NAF FA1205001445335 7/2/2012
sha.com WIPO D2012-0997 7/19/2012
mindo.com WIPO D2012-1273 7/26/2012
wallstreet.com WIPO D2012-1193 9/12/2012
womantowomanhealthcenter.com WIPO D2012-1555 9/22/2012
metatrader.com WIPO D2012-1475 10/5/2012
takeout.com WIPO D2012-1668 10/18/2012
gtms.com NAF FA1210001465897 11/19/2012
petexpress.com NAF FA1211001470056 1/2/2013
coldfront.com NAF domain first 1/17/2013
eyemagine.com WIPO domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew; plan "B" 2/14/2013
swash.com WIPO D2012-2179 2/22/2013
joopa.com NAF FA1302001483682 3/27/2013
opulence.com NAF domain first 4/2/2013
avayo.net NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; UDRP history 4/19/2013
hivinnocencegroupproject.com and other NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; misrepresentation 5/6/2013
ronpaul.org WIPO harassment 5/11/2013
ishades.com WIPO domain first; bad faith - no evidence; misrepresentation 5/14/2013
digilove.com WIPO domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; Plan "B"; misrepresentation 6/4/2013
klipz.com NAF domain first; bad faith - no evidence 7/17/2013

The ‘Reasons’ column is an attempt to identify and categorize the various circumstances cited by panels in support of a finding of RDNH.

Explanation of Reasons:


Bad Faith – No Evidence – the complaint provides no evidence of the respondent’s bad faith

Deception – deceptive behavior in complainant’s prior dealings with respondent

Delay - a long delay in bringing the complaint raises questions about whether complainant believes it has rights to the domain

Domain First – the registration of the domain predates trademark rights of the Complainant

Harassment - the primary motive of complainant appears to be to harass the respondent

Legitimate Interest – Complainant Knew – Complainant should have been aware that the respondent had a legitimate interest in the disputed domain

Misrepresentation – a misrepresentation to the panel, usually the omission of material information in violation of Complainant’s representation that the complaint is complete and accurate.

Plan “B” – the complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative acquisition strategy after commercial negotiations failed

Prior Court Case - Complaint brought to further burden respondent despite the matter already being the subject of a court case

TM – not valid – complainant did not have enforceable trademark rights

UDRP history – complainant has a history of filing unsuccessful UDRP complaints


Source: RDNH.COM






18 thoughts on “Reverse Domain Name Hijackings 2000-2013. All 143 Cases Sorted by Year.

  1. Jeff

    The very reason why I joined ICA!

    Thanks Nat for info. Rick being a leader! Berkens too.

    Reply
  2. Markus Jalmerot

    What annoys me the most are the 2 and 3 letter reverse domain hi-jackings. It’s just ridiculous that WIPO allows stealing of such valuable assets.

    Reply
  3. Danny Pryor

    ANYONE who owns a domain name and participates in any way in this industry should be sharing this list on as many social platforms as possible.

    Reply
  4. Rick Schwartz

    Danny,
    Wish others understood the power we have. But it is too much for 99% of the folks reading this blog and throughout the industry to do anything proactive. Including sharing, tweeting and liking. I can’t do this alone. I need a LOT of help. And the help is not for me. It is for them!

    15 tweets and 5 Likes in 24 hours is SHAMEFUL! Should be 115 and MORE!!
    What message does that send??
    :-(

    Reply
  5. Ev Yves

    Thank you Rick for standing up for all of us who cannot or dare not. Posted on my site and tweeted, linked etc…..

    Reply
  6. Cyborg

    Thank you for this important info.

    If someone tries to RDNH anything of mine, I will burn their business to the ground…figuratively speaking of course…. ;)

    Reply
  7. Hidden Review

    Let’s go Rick Schwartz to create the domain industry organization. that all owners of domain names in the world could join the organization.

    a lot of domain owners who do not resist, as an example said by steven chang

    Reply
  8. Hidden Review

    Come on, Rick Schwartz and all domainers, let’s fight back, let’s create an organization where domainers have chance to fight back through an organization , instead of fighting back individually . The strength of an organization is needed here . I will be the 1st member if there is organization available.

    Come on fight… fight…. fight…. fight….. fight………….

    Reply
  9. John Berryhill

    Daniel, we can rest assured that if 2013 turns out to be a record year for RDNH, then WIPO will issue a press release to that effect in early 2014.

    Reply
  10. 500 Year Old CyberSquatters Discovered in Oldest Florida City, St. Augustine - The Rick Schwartz Domain Name and Traffic Blog RicksBlog.com | Home of the "Domain King"

    […] Pathetic argument huh? But these same TERMITES out there use that argument against bona-fide domain investors like you and me that foresaw what others did for HUNDREDS of years and THEY did not see it. Now they are angry and they are cheap and some are thugs and some have even been labeled as THIEVES by the governing body as they have been found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING!! […]

    Reply
  11. 500 Year Old CyberSquatters Discovered in Oldest Florida City, St. Augustine - The Rick Schwartz Domain Name and Traffic Blog RicksBlog.com | Home of the "Domain King"

    […] Pathetic argument huh? But these same TERMITES out there use that argument against bona-fide domain investors like you and me that foresaw what others did for HUNDREDS of years and THEY did not see it. Now they are angry and they are cheap and some are thugs and some have even been labeled as THIEVES by the governing body as they have been found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING!! […]

    Reply
  12. 500 Year Old CyberSquatters Discovered in Oldest Florida City, St. Augustine ‹ Domain Hunter

    […] Pathetic argument huh? But these same TERMITES out there use that argument against bona-fide domain investors like you and me that foresaw what others did for HUNDREDS of years and THEY did not see it. Now they are angry and they are cheap and some are thugs and some have even been labeled as THIEVES by the governing body as they have been found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING!! […]

    Reply

My Blog is only as good as the Comments YOU post. Thank You!