This UDRP ought to have been reverse domain name hijacking…

…yet it wasn’t even considered.

Everything regarding the cybersquatting complaint Petrofac Services Limited filed against Petrofac Qatar WLL over the domain name petrofac-qatar.com screams “reverse domain name hijacking.”

The respondent clearly has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It’s the name of its business.

Furthermore, the complainant omitted key information from its complaint, counting that it sued the respondent over its trade name…and lost.

It also gave misleading information to the panel regarding the respondent’s request for $3 million to sell the domain name.

As I read the UDRP, it seemed that the panel was laying out all of the details for finding reverse domain name hijacking. It even considered the issue of registration in bad faith despite noting that it didn’t have to since it found rights or legitimate

So imagine my surprise when I scrolled to the bottom of the decision and RDNH wasn’t even discussed.

Why?