This reverse domain name hijacking? — Why wasn’t

Panelist doesn’t consider RDNH despite apparent false statement.

UDRP in red on a cream background

A FORUM UDRP panelist has denied a cybersquatting complaint over the domain name boku.net, but I’m curious why he didn’t consider reverse domain name hijacking.

Payments firm Boku, Inc., which uses the domain name boku.com, filed the case.

Boku was founded in 2009. Peter Eisch registered the boku.net in 1996 and has owned the domain ever since. That means he couldn’t have registered the domain in bad faith to target the non-existent firm and its trademarks.

While filing a dead-on-arrival case doesn’t necessarily constitute reverse domain name hijacking, Panelist Kendall C. Reed’s decision states that the Complainant argued that “Boku’s trademark rights predate the registration and use of the domain name by many years.”

Based on the information in the written decision, this statement is false. Most panels will at least consider reverse domain name hijacking when a filer makes a false statement.

Also on the wire