This reverse domain name hijacking? — Why wasn’t

This case follows the classic “Plan B” reverse domain name hijacking pattern.

A National Arbitration Forum panelist has denied a cybersquatting claim against the domain name gropod.com, but for some reason, didn’t consider if it was a case of reverse domain name hijacking.

As stated by the decision, the domain owner registered the domain name in 2000 and has used it in commerce. The Complainant’s first rights in the Gropod name date to 2018. Furthermore, the Complainant admitted in the case that it has been trying to acquire the domain. It has offered $1,000; the owner eventually offered to sell it for $20,000.

Based on the published decision, this is a classic “Plan B” reverse domain name hijacking case.

It doesn’t appear that the domain owner was represented by counsel and probably didn’t ask the panelist, Héctor Ariel Manoff, to find reverse domain name hijacking. Still, a panelist ought to consider it when the details follow this case pattern.