One of the newest and the most serious issues in the world of domain ownership and registration is reverse domain name hijacking. This is a variant of the cybercrime known as cybersquatting. However, reverse cybersquatting comes with its own unusual twist. (By the way, those in need of domain names can visit my site for good domain names not taken.)
For example, cybersquatting takes place when somebody uses a domain name or a variant of a domain name that either belongs to a famous entity, or belongs to a high traffic entity. Cybersquatters do this in order to take advantage of the high traffic that comes along with a famous domain name or a famous online brand.
The cybersquatters operate by strong arming the original owners of the domain name. For example, most firms will purchase variants of their domain name, so that no one else can take advantage of the online traffic that comes along with owning a famous domain name. The cybersquatters will force the original domain name owners to pay them to repurchase the domain name. This is how cybersquatters make their money.
Reverse cybersquatting involves filing a claim against a domain name owner in bad faith. For instance, if a domain name owner has a registered a domain name that a cybersquatter likes, then the cybersquatter will file a claim stating the domain name was theirs first, and they would like to “reclaim” their domain name. When these crimes first happened, many domain name owners would simply transfer the ownership of their domain names out of fear.
Now, thanks to the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy, or UDRP rule 1, reverse cybersquatting is recognized as being a form of cybercrime. In short, the reverse cybersquatter engages in a bad faith claim when they pretend that another party stole their domain name, so as to claim property to a domain name.
Reverse cybersquatting is also classified as such when the claimant objects to the use of a domain name regardless of whether or not they have verified if the domain name was registered in good faith or not. There also needs to be evidence that the domain name was obtained and used in bad faith. One example where reverse cybersquatting is mentioned is in the case of Goldline International, Inc. V. Gold Line.
In this case, it was ruled that in order to prove that cybersquatting was used, the respondent had to show that the complainant knew of the respondent’s unassailable rights or of their legitimate interest in the domain name that was up for dispute. There is another cased, Smart Design LLC v. Hughes that establishes that reverse domain hijacking occurred not due to an establishment of bad intent, but because bad faith was established against the plantiff.
There are several other reverse domain hijacking cases that will become more prominent as time moves forward. For the moment, the guidelines that establish what reverse domain name hijacking is or isn’t are still very elastic, and they leave lots of room for interpretation. However, there are new acts being established to solidify rulings against reverse domain hijacking.
The writer, Joshua Nikenya, is a domain name expert who has been in the domain name field for many years. Are you looking for information on domain name parking? Visit his website for this and much more, including details on how to check domain name availability.
Leave a Reply
