I can’t believe it’s not RDNH: Gloo.com – Domain Name Wire

Another case that probably should have been RDNH.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has denied a cybersquatting complaint against the domain name Gloo.com but neglected to consider whether it was a case of reverse domain name hijacking.

The case is a classic “Plan B” UDRP filing. The complainant, which uses Gloo.us, tried to buy Gloo.com, which was registered well before it started using the brand. When negotiations didn’t work out the way it wanted it filed a UDRP.

Yet the panel didn’t even discuss reverse domain name hijacking in the decision. It’s not clear if the respondent, who was represented by John Berryhill, requested a finding of RDNH. But a request for the finding isn’t necessary. Given the fact pattern in this case, I’m surprised that the panel didn’t at least consider it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s