In this case, the Complainant lost on the issues of rights and legitimate interests and bad faith. We have reported the case on those aspects and it is clear that the Complainant’s was weak. But was it so weak and unmeritorious that there should a be a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ? It is on that second question that we report this case again.
On Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, as is always the case, the decision was made on the actual facts of the case. The Panel, however, made an interesting general observation that the bringing of the complaint could be “speculative”, as it was in this case and yet not justify a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, relying on IUNO Advokatpartnerselskab v. Angela Croom (WIPO Case No. D2011-0806). The Panel decided, not with a great deal of evident enthusiasm and despite the fact that the claim was speculative, to give the Complainant “the benefit of the doubt” and not make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.