WIPO domain disputes › RDNH findings › DAU2013-0023
DAU2013-0023: RDNH finding over airportparkingcairns.net.au and 1 more
On 24 October 2013, a WIPO panel declared that Cairns Airport Pty Ltd. brought its complaint over airportparkingcairns.net.au 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 record
| WIPO case | DAU2013-0023 |
|---|---|
| Domain names | airportparkingcairns.net.aucairnsairportparking.com.au |
| Complainant | Cairns Airport Pty Ltd. |
| Decision date | 24 October 2013 |
| Outcome (WIPO) | Complaint denied |
| How the finding appears | declared in the operative decision |
| Panelists | Brown K.C., The Hon Neil Knight, William P. Ryan, Desmond J. (presiding) |
| Panel | Three-member panel |
| Complainant represented | Yes |
| Complaint filed | 15 August 2013 |
The panel’s finding
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied in respect of both First Domain Name and the Second Domain Name. In addition, the Panel finds, as per paragraph 15(e) of the Policy that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The bringing of these proceedings seems to form a part of a pattern of harassment by the Complainant of the Respondents. Furthermore, the Complainant has been less than forthcoming in these proceedings, particularly in respect of its history and when it became known as "Cairns Airport".
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.
