WIPO domain disputes › RDNH findings › D2003-0251
D2003-0251: RDNH finding over artlecorbusier.com and 10 more
On 4 July 2003, a WIPO panel found that Fondation Le Corbusier brought its complaint over artlecorbusier.com and 10 more in bad faith, the finding known as reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH). The complaint succeeded for some of the domain names and failed for the rest.
The record
| WIPO case | D2003-0251 |
|---|---|
| Domain names | artlecorbusier.comcenter-lecorbusier.comcenter-lecorbusier.orgcenterlecorbusier.comcenterlecorbusier.orgcentre-lecorbusier.comcentre-lecorbusier.infocentre-lecorbusier.orgcentrelecorbusier.comcentrelecorbusier.infocentrelecorbusier.org ... |
| Complainant | Fondation Le Corbusier |
| Decision date | 4 July 2003 |
| Outcome (WIPO) | Complaint denied, transfer in part |
| How the finding appears | found in the panel's reasoning |
| Panelists | Gautier, Pierre-Yves Harris, Gordon Limbury, Alan L. (presiding) |
| Panel | Three-member panel |
| Complainant represented | Yes |
| Complaint filed | 2 April 2003 |
The panel’s finding
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the following domain names be transferred to the Complainant: <lecorbusierfondation.com> <lecorbusierfondation.org> <lecorbusierfoundation.com> <lecorbusierfoundation.org> <fondationlecorbusier.com> <fondationlecorbusier.org> <foundationlecorbusier.com> <foundationlecorbusier.org> For the foregoing reasons, in relation to all other disputed domain names the Complaint is denied.
Accordingly, the Panel considers that it is entitled to consider each disputed domain name separately in determining whether to make a finding of 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.
