What is reverse domain hijacking? Definition and protective measures

Domain names are crucial in the digital economy as they act not only as virtual addresses but also as brand identifiers. While legitimate trademark owners often have to defend themselves against cybersquatting, there are also cases where companies or individuals attempt to misappropriate foreign domains through legal means. This is known as reverse domain hijacking (RDH).

What is reverse domain hijacking?

Reverse domain hijacking, also known as reverse cybersquatting, is the attempt by a trademark owner to unlawfully appropriate the domain of a third party by falsely accusing them of cybersquatting. The dispute resolution procedure is misused to force legitimate domain owners to surrender their domains.

While cybersquatting involves the deliberate registration of domains that contain protected brand names in order to profit from their popularity, RDH is the opposite and is where trademark owners attempt to obtain the domain(s) from legitimate owners through unjustified claims.

An example of reverse domain hijacking

One prominent case of reverse domain hijacking concerned the domain integrity.com, which was registered back in 1996 by a private domain investor. The domain was held by its owner for years without any disputes arising.

It was not until many years later, in 2023, that a company registered a trademark with the term ‘INTEGRITY’ and subsequently sought to appropriate the domain through arbitration under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The complaint argued that the current owner had registered the domain in bad faith in order to profit from the trademark or resell it at a high price.

The domain owner disagreed with this representation and presented evidence that he had registered the domain long before the trademark registration and that it was used for legitimate business purposes. The arbitration court examined the case and concluded that the company had no legitimate claim to the domain and was rather trying to abuse the process to misappropriate the web address.

The court clarified that this was reverse domain hijacking, the unlawful attempt to take over a legally registered domain through deception or legal manipulation. The complaint was dismissed and the original owner was allowed to keep his domain.

Such cases show that even companies with subsequently registered trademarks can try to abuse the UDRP procedure for their own interests. It also illustrates how important it is for domain owners to know their rights and defend themselves against unlawful claims.

Increase in cases of RDH

There has been an increase in domain disputes in recent years. The number of proceedings reached a record high in the first quarter of 2023. This development indicates that cases of reverse domain hijacking are also on the rise, as more and more companies are trying to secure coveted domains.

One reason for the rise in RDH cases is the increasing importance of online presence for companies. Domains are not only addresses on the internet, but also important brand identifiers. This growing significance means that companies are increasingly trying to secure coveted domains, even if they have already been legally registered by third parties.

Another factor is the growing awareness and use of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. This procedure, developed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), enables trademark owners to resolve domain disputes efficiently and cost effectively. However, in some cases, it’s misused to obtain domains to which there is no legitimate claim.

Protection against reverse domain hijacking

To effectively protect yourself against reverse domain hijacking, it’s important to act with foresight and deal with the legal aspects of domain registration. The first step is to carefully document the domain and ensure that all relevant information about the registration, as well as the use of the domain, is properly recorded. This can be crucial in defending against unjustified claims, especially when it comes to proving the legality of the registration.

Another protective mechanism is a comprehensive trademark search before registering a domain. If you choose a domain with a name or term that may conflict with a registered trademark, you could find yourself in a problematic situation in the event of a dispute. Even if the domain is still free at the time, subsequent trademark applications by others can complicate the situation.

Finally, it can be helpful to contact a specialist lawyer for domain law if you’re unsure. They can support you not only in relation to domain registration and trademark rights, but also in how you can best protect yourself against unjustified claims. An experienced lawyer can also help you to optimally prepare your defense in the event of an RDH attempt and take legal action in an emergency.

What to do if you are affected by RDH?

Protective measures don’t always help, which means that domain holders may well have to resolve a dispute over a domain.

Upon receiving a UDRP complaint or any other legal claim concerning your domain, remain calm and review the details thoroughly. Examine who the complainants are and what accusations are being made. Do the claims of ‘bad faith’ registration have any legitimate basis? In many RDH cases, such allegations are often tied to trademarks registered after the domain or rely on vague or questionable assertions.

In a second step, compile all documents and evidence that prove your legitimate registration and use of the domain. This includes, for example, the registration date, which shows that the domain existed before the trademark, or content or business activities that prove that the domain was not misused.

If the complaint was submitted via the UDRP, you must write a response within the set deadline. It’s important to point out the unlawful use of the procedure. You must also prove that you did not register or use the domain in bad faith.

If the RDH attempt is particularly obvious, it may make sense to take legal action yourself, for example by filing a claim for damages. A counterclaim for abuse of rights is also conceivable. If the trademark proprietor has deliberately made false statements, this can be considered fraudulent behaviour.

Please note the legal notice for this article.