WIPO panelist doesn’t bother to consider a sure-fire reverse domain name hijacking claim.

I realize UDRP panelists aren’t paid much to handle cases, but there must be a minimum standard here.

Why the frustration? Take a look at the recently decided case for Cite.com.

The owner of the domain name registered it in 1997 and started a business called Cité Consulting. The complainant Systemware, Inc. didn’t start using the term “CITE” in commerce until 2011.

I understand that Systemware may not have been aware that the domain owner had a consulting company using the domain name. But the 14 year difference between his registration and the company’s first use of the term is enough to make this case a complete joke.

The respondent rightfully asked for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

But in one of the shortest UDRP decisions I’ve ever read, panelist Christopher J. Pibus didn’t even bother to consider RDNH.

© DomainNameWire.com 2011.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

Related posts:

  1. CitizenHawk Nailed For Reverse Domain Hijacking, Chastised by Panelist
  2. MIA.com Saved in Arbitration, But Who’s This Lazy Panelist?
  3. California ISP Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking