WIPO domain disputes › RDNH findings › D2001-0668
D2001-0668: RDNH finding over itmetrixx.com
On 2 August 2001, a WIPO panel declared that Itmetrixx, Inc. brought its complaint over itmetrixx.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 | D2001-0668 |
|---|---|
| Domain name | itmetrixx.com |
| Complainant | Itmetrixx, Inc. |
| Decision date | 2 August 2001 |
| Outcome (WIPO) | Complaint denied |
| How the finding appears | declared in the operative decision |
| Panelist | Donahey, M. Scott |
| Panel | Sole panelist |
The panel’s finding
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides that Complainant has failed to establish that it has rights in respect of the mark ITMETRIXX, that the Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue, and that Respondent's domain name has been registered in good faith. Accordingly, the Complaint is denied. Further, the Panel finds that Complainant has engaged in bad faith 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.
