Biofuels company lost an auction and filed a UDRP against the winner.
Still coveting the domain name, Kvasir filed a UDRP against the domain owner about a year later.
The panel found that there was no proof that the domain owner targeted the Complainant. The domain owner said he bought the domain because it’s a Norse god, not because of the Complainant.
When I search on Google for this term, the first page only refers to the Norse god.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:
the Panel finds that the Complainant and its Counsel have contravened the above RDNH bases, because of their knowledge of a lack of the Respondent’s bad faith directed towards the Complainant, making the assertion that the Respondent must have been targeting the Complainant highly unlikely. Finally, as it has been stated in previous decisions, a complainant is at risk of a RDNH declaration when its attempt to try and buy a domain name is not successful, and it tries to obtain it by using, or rather “abusing”, the UDRP.
© DomainNameWire.com 2023. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact editor (at) domainnamewire.com. Latest domain news at DNW.com: Domain Name Wire.