This not reverse domain name hijacking? — How is

Domain was allegedly registered well ahead of firm started using name.

National Arbitration Forum panelist Dennis A. Foster has turned in a UDRP decision in favor of the respondent for the domain name IAFT.com. The case was filed by International Academy of Film and Television (IAFT International LLC), and the case was dead on arrival — at least based on the facts presented in the case.

IAFT claims to have started using IAFT in 2003, three years following the owner of IAFT.com claims to have registered the domain name. Yet it still tried to argue that the domain name was registered in bad faith.

It even made an impossible claim (if the domain was registered by the respondent in 2000) in an additional filing, that “Respondent’ true intent has always been to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant at the highest price possible”.

How could he do this unless we was psychic? Making such a bogus claim in an additional submission seems rather misleading.

I actually question if the respondent registered the domain in 2000 based on historical whois records, but the complainant didn’t seem to challenge this.

As stated by the domain name owner, IAFT has been trying to buy the domain name from him since 2005 and never mentioned a trademark.

And the complainant states that IAFT.com, while parked, never showed links related to the complainant.

Despite this, the panelist declined to find reverse domain name hijacking. He declined based on the complainant prevailing in two prongs of the UDRP.

I don’t think this ought to overcome a case so devoid of merit, at least based on the facts that were considered.

IAFT’s lawyer was Charles Carreon. If that name is familiar to you, here’s why.