WIPO domain disputes › RDNH findings › D2020-3416
D2020-3416: RDNH finding over hsil.com and 1 more
On 4 April 2021, a WIPO panel declared that Brilloca Limited HSIL Limited M/s. Somany Home Innovation Limited / SHIL Ltd. brought its complaint over hsil.com and 1 more in bad faith, the finding known as reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH). The complaint was denied, so the registrant kept the name.
The domain name was registered on 16 November 1999, 21.1 years before the complaint was filed.
The record
| WIPO case | D2020-3416 |
|---|---|
| Domain names | hsil.comshil.com |
| Complainant | Brilloca Limited HSIL Limited M/s. Somany Home Innovation Limited / SHIL Ltd. |
| Decision date | 4 April 2021 |
| Outcome (WIPO) | Complaint denied |
| How the finding appears | declared in the operative decision |
| Panelists | Barbero, Luca (presiding) Lyon, Richard G. Majumder, Shwetasree |
| Panel | Three-member panel |
| Respondent | Represented by counsel |
| Domain registered | 16 November 1999 |
| Complaint filed | 16 December 2020 |
The panel’s finding
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. The Panel also finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking 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.
