WIPO domain disputes › RDNH findings › D2000-1151
D2000-1151: RDNH finding over goldline.com
On 8 January 2001, a WIPO panel declared that Goldline International, Inc. brought its complaint over goldline.com in bad faith, the finding known as reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH). The complaint was denied, so the registrant kept the name.
The record
| WIPO case | D2000-1151 |
|---|---|
| Domain name | goldline.com |
| Complainant | Goldline International, Inc. |
| Decision date | 8 January 2001 |
| Outcome (WIPO) | Complaint denied |
| How the finding appears | declared in the operative decision |
| Panelists | Bernstein, David H. (presiding) Kelly, David M. Limbury, Alan L. |
| Panel | Three-member panel |
The panel’s finding
Complainant has failed utterly to establish two of the three elements of the Policy: that Respondent lacks legitimate rights or interests in the domain name "goldline.com", and that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. The Panel therefore denies the Complainant�srequest that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant and declares that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and thus constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Read the decision on WIPO · WIPO case record
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.
How the RDNH archive is built
WIPO publishes every panel decision and a full-text search over them. This archive starts from that search for the wording a panel uses when it declares reverse domain name hijacking, reads each decision in full (older ones are web pages, newer ones PDFs converted to text), and keeps those where the panel itself says the complaint was brought in bad faith. A finding is marked declared in the operative decision when the final order says so, or found in the panel’s reasoning when only the reasoning does.
The reading is automatic and has been checked by hand on samples, but it is not exhaustive and not perfect: some findings may be missing, and a few listed cases may be borderline. A case is listed only when the panel’s own closing words can be quoted cleanly; decisions with an irregular layout, or not written in English, are held back. Every page links to the decision on WIPO, which is the authority. Dates, parties and panellists come from WIPO’s case records. Respondents are not named.
This is an information resource, not legal advice. A finding of RDNH is a panel’s conclusion about one complaint, not a statement about the company beyond that case.
