Reverse domain name hijacking (also known as reverse cybersquatting), occurs where a trademark owner attempts to secure a domain name by making false cybersquatting claims against a domain name's rightful owner.^[1] This often intimidates domain name owners into transferring ownership of their domain names to trademark owners to avoid legal action, particularly when the domain names belong to smaller organizations or individuals.^[2] Reverse domain name hijacking is most commonly perpetrated by larger corporations and famous individuals.^[3]

Reverse domain name hijacking is an analogue to the practice of domain hijacking, wherein domain name registrants registered domain names containing famous third party trademarks with the intent of profiting by selling the domain names back to trademark owners.^[4] Trademark owners initially responded by filing cybersquatting lawsuits against registrants to enforce their trademark rights.^[5] However, as the number of cybersquatting incidents grew, trademark owners noticed that registrants would often settle their cases rather than litigate.^[6] Consequently, although the filing of cybersquatting lawsuits began as a defensive strategy to combat cybersquatting, such lawsuits also can be used as a way of strongarming innocent domain name registrants into giving up domain names that the trademark owner is not, in fact, entitled to.^[7]

[edit] UDRP Restrictions on Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP defines reverse domain name hijacking as the filing of a complaint in bad faith, resulting in the abuse of the UDRP administrative process.^[8] It becomes difficult to objectively quantify what constitutes subjective 'bad faith,' resulting in panels often viewing parties' factual discrepancies as indeterminable or immaterial at best.^[9] Therefore, despite its express recognition in the UDRP, reverse domain name hijacking findings are rare and based heavily on the factual circumstances surrounding each case.^[10]

In particular, WIPO panels generally find instances of reverse domain name hijacking where the complaint fails to establish that the respondent acted in bad faith, that the complainant regularly asserted its domain name rights, or that the primary purpose of the proceeding is to harass the domain name holder.

Examples of such findings include the following WIPO cases: Urban Logic, Inc. v. Urban Logic, Peter Holland (2009), David Robinson v. Brendan (2008), Decal v. Gregory Ricks (2008), Hero v. The Heroic Sandwich (2008), Poker Host Inc. v. Russ 'Dutch' Boyd (2008), FCC Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas v 'FCC.COM' (2007), Liquid Nutrition v. liquidnutrition.com (2007), Rohl, LLC v. ROHL SA (2006), and Deutsche Welle v. DiamondWare (2000).

Moreover, even if a UDRP complainant is deemed a reverse domain name hijacker, the declaration is of little import to most complainants. They suffer the risk of possible negative public perceptions, but UDRP panelists currently have no other tools by which to punish such abuses.

[edit] ACPA Restrictions on Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not expressly recognize reverse domain name hijacking and often only limits defendants' recovery to retention or transference of the domain name.^[11] It also fails to provide any remedies for victims of attempted reverse cybersquatting.^[12] However, the statute permits some monetary relief where bad faith, reckless disregard or the willful violation of a court order are involved.^[13]

Similarly, a 1975 amendment to the Lanham Act gives courts discretion in awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in 'exceptional' circumstances.^[14] In attempting to define 'exceptional,' Circuit courts are split as to what objectively constitutes malicious, fraudulent, or deliberate misconduct.^[15] Some courts award such fees where bad faith or baseless litigation is involved while other courts look for economic coercion or failure to reference controlling law.^[16] Nevertheless, due to the inherent animosity arising from being sued, courts generally hold prevailing defendants to a higher level of scrutiny, requiring vexatious or harassing conduct to shift attorney's fees in their favor.

[edit] Implications

Neither the UDRP nor the ACPA provides much deterrent to curb trademark owners' abuse of their rights.^[17] To abate reverse domain name hijacking practices, some legal professionals believe Congress should enact laws that are specifically designed to facilitate litigation against reverse cybersquatters.^[18] Similarly, some advocates argue for stronger penalties to deter the unlawful deprivation of validly registered domain names,^[19] such as fines and precluding offending trademark owners from filing cybersquatting claims for a designated period of time.^[20]

[edit] References