WIPO domain disputes › RDNH findings › D2003-0297
D2003-0297: RDNH finding over futureworld.com
On 18 July 2003, a WIPO panel declared that Furtureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited brought its complaint over futureworld.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 | D2003-0297 |
|---|---|
| Domain name | futureworld.com |
| Complainant | Furtureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited |
| Decision date | 18 July 2003 |
| Outcome (WIPO) | Complaint denied |
| How the finding appears | declared in the operative decision |
| Panelists | Anand, Pravin (presiding) Samuels, Jeffrey M. Sorkin, David E. |
| Panel | Three-member panel |
| Complainant represented | Yes |
| Respondent | Represented by counsel |
| Complaint filed | 16 April 2003 |
The panel’s finding
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied, and a majority of the Panel finds that the Complainant has engaged in 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.
