|
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.〔Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos Ltda., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19976 (D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2000), rev’d, 273 F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 2001) (Sallen ).〕 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.〔Warren B. Chik, Lord of Your Domain, But Master of None: The Need to Harmonize and Recalibrate the Domain Name Regime of Ownership and Control, 16 INT’L J.L. & INFO. TECH. 8, 60 (2008) (Chik ).〕 Reverse domain name hijacking is most commonly perpetrated by larger corporations and famous individuals.〔Id.〕 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.〔Sallen, supra note 1.〕 Trademark owners initially responded by filing cybersquatting lawsuits against registrants to enforce their trademark rights.〔Id.〕 However, as the number of cybersquatting incidents grew, trademark owners noticed that registrants would often settle their cases rather than litigate.〔Id.〕 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.〔Schmidheiny v. Weber, 164 F.Supp.2d 484, 487 (E.D. Pa. 2001).〕 == UDRP Restrictions on Reverse Domain Name Hijacking == Paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP Rules defines reverse domain name hijacking as the filing of a complaint in bad faith, resulting in the abuse of the UDRP administrative process.〔Id.〕 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.〔Id.〕 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.〔Int'l Driver Training, Inc. v. Web Integrations, LLC and Comedy Driving Inc., D2009-0129 (WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, Apr. 9, 2009).〕 Circumstances which have been cited by WIPO panels as justification for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking includes: * When the registration of the domain predates any trademark rights of the Complainant. * When the complaint has provided no evidence of bad faith registration or use directed towards the Complainant. * Where the Complainant has used the UDRP as a Plan "B" option to attempt to secure the domain after commercial negotiations have broken off. * Where the Complainant has attempted to deceive the domain owner or makes misrepresentations or fails to disclose material information to the panel. Examples of such findings include the following WIPO cases: (Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.org ) (2013), (Webpass, Inc. v. Paul Breitenbach ) (2010), 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), Her Majesty the Queen (Elizabeth II) v. Virtual Countries, Inc.,〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=https://www.esqwire.com/Cases.asp?intCaseID=185 )〕 and (Deutsche Welle v. DiamondWare ) (2000). A list of over one hundred reverse domain name hijacking decisions is available at (RDNH.com ). Although UDRP panelists currently have no tools by which to punish abuses such as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, such a finding might be used in a local jurisdiction where such abuses might constitute a tort such as tortious interference with contract or an unfair business practice. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「reverse domain hijacking」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|