Gloo.com: I can’t believe it’s not RDNH

Another case that probably ought to have been RDNH.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has denied a cybersquatting complaint against the domain name Gloo.com but neglected to consider whether it was a case of reverse domain name hijacking.

The case is a classic “Plan B” UDRP filing. The complainant, which uses Gloo.us, tried to buy Gloo.com, which was registered well ahead of it started using the brand. When negotiations didn’t work out the way it wanted it filed a UDRP.

Yet the panel didn’t even discuss reverse domain name hijacking in the decision. It’s not clear if the respondent, who was represented by John Berryhill, requested a finding of RDNH. But a request for the finding isn’t necessary. Given the fact pattern in this case, I’m surprised that the panel didn’t at least consider it.