WIPO domain disputes › RDNH findings › D2000-1202
D2000-1202: RDNH finding over dw.com
On 16 January 2001, a WIPO panel declared that Deutsche Welle brought its complaint over dw.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 | D2000-1202 |
|---|---|
| Domain name | dw.com |
| Complainant | Deutsche Welle |
| Decision date | 16 January 2001 |
| Outcome (WIPO) | Complaint denied |
| How the finding appears | declared in the operative decision |
| Panelists | Bettinger, Torsten Cabell, Diane Willoughby, Tony (presiding) |
| Panel | Three-member panel |
The panel’s finding
In light of the findings set out above, namely that, notwithstanding that the Domain Name is identical to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights, the Complainant has failed to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and has also failed to prove that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complaint fails and is dismissed. Further, the Panel, by a majority, declares that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
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.
