WIPO domain disputes › RDNH findings

Reverse domain name hijacking: the WIPO findings

At least 393 times, a WIPO panel has ruled in the domain owner’s favour and gone further than denying the complaint: it found the complainant itself acted in bad faith. Here is who, over what, and what the cases have in common.

What the finding means

Under the UDRP, a company can force the transfer of a domain name by proving the registrant registered and used it in bad faith. If the panel decides the company knew, or should have known, that it could not win, paragraph 15(e) of the Rules says the panel must declare that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. That is reverse domain name hijacking, or RDNH. It carries no fine; the cost to the complainant is the finding itself, on the public record.

The numbers

Findings by year of decision

Every finding, in detail

Each row is a decision in which a panel ruled, in the registrant’s favour, that the complainant brought the case in bad faith. Declared in the order means the panel’s final order says so. Found in reasoning means the reasoning says so and the order simply denies the complaint. “Partly” marks cases where some domain names were still transferred. Open a case to read the panel’s own closing words.

393 decisions, newest first. Download as CSV or JSON.

Affiliate disclosure: this page contains affiliate links (Dynadot and Spaceship). I may earn a commission from qualifying purchases made through them. The WIPO links are not affiliate links.