Accordingly, the reverse domain name hijacking is such a ploy that is applied by a complainant in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name owner. In fact, there is a certain rule for reverse domain name hijacking and it was under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy or UDRP rule 1. Aside from that, there is also a certain rule under the same policy that the panels finding a reverse domain name hijacking are not just sanctioned to deny the objection, but they are really directed to positively locate the presence of bad faith.



Speaking of the bad faith as the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy holds, it is considered that in the true statement of the rules for reverse domain name hijacking, there is really no vivid view of what a bad faith means and what makes for a bad faith UDRP objection as well as the facts that justifies a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. As such, it is then necessary to look at some clear illustrations about this thing.

Essentially, according to a current rulings of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, the reverse domain name hijacking basically surface when an objection is taken regardless of the knowledge that the domain name owner has an authority or justifiable willingness in the domain name or the case in which the domain name was registered in good faith, with or without the frustrating situation of nuisance or proven bad intent by the plaintiff who is in search of owning the domain name.

For further interest, the reverse domain name hijacking is in fact mentioned in the ruling for the Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line with the statement as "To prevail such a claim (of reverse domain name hijacking), Respondent must show that Complainant knew of Respondent's unassailable right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name or the clear lack of bad faith registration and use, and nevertheless brought the Complaint in bad faith".

Another important distinction of the reverse domain name hijacking was the Goldline panel's adoption of a rule that was set down in Smart design LLC v. Hughes, in which the panels also found out that there is a reverse domain name hijacking not because of an established bad intent, but for the fact that the allegations of the respondent's bad faith were established in a mode that the panel concluded as unsatisfactory to the plaintiff.

Out of those two cases about the reverse domain name hijacking, there are still others and others that continue to create a booming impact to the world of domain name and to the lives of the domain name holders. So if you think that the rules for reverse domain name hijacking leaves a lot of room for interpretation, well, you are right, but it is just necessary to know that it does not end there. Such is how the reverse domain name hijacking bangs the domain name disputes.