The company failed to show trademark rights before the domain was acquired, leading to a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panelist concluded that Katek AG, a German electronics manufacturer, engaged in reverse domain name hijacking when it tried to wrest the domain katek.com from its current registrant.
Domain investor Stanley Pace registered katek.com in 2012. At the time of his acquisition, Katek AG had not established trademark rights in the name, a critical factor that undermined the company’s complaint.
Katek AG argued the domain had changed hands after 2012, but historical WHOIS records showed Pace acquired and has remained the registrant since that year. This evidence proved decisive in the panel’s assessment.
Before filing the formal dispute, Katek AG attempted to buy the domain. The company also made settlement offers after filing the complaint.
Panelist Mehmet Polat Kalafatoğlu found that, given the information available to the complainant during the proceedings, Katek AG should have known it could not prove bad-faith registration. The panel noted the complainant received registrar verification and the respondent’s response, which disclosed the date of acquisition and the respondent’s identity and activities. Despite that, the complainant continued to file supplemental submissions and repeated unsuccessful arguments, including an allegation of a post-trademark transfer that the panel found unsubstantiated.
The panel observed that the complainant disclosed an unsuccessful purchase offer made at the beginning of 2026, before filing the complaint, without revealing the offer amount. The case file also contains an email dated March 25, 2026, from the respondent’s verified address, which shows the respondent had brought the domain’s priority to the complainant’s attention. That communication included a February 2025 message on a third-party platform offering to buy the domain for USD 100, apparently originating from the complainant’s parent company. Taken together, these facts indicate the complaint followed an attempt to acquire the domain without a plausible legal basis.
Given these circumstances, the panel concluded the complaint amounted to reverse domain name hijacking.
Legal representation in the matter included Wuesthoff & Wuesthoff Patentanwälte und Rechtsanwalt PartG mbB for Katek AG and John Berryhill for Stanley Pace.