Well, another feather to JB's cap:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0770.html
What makes this decision somewhat "special" is this:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0770.html
What makes this decision somewhat "special" is this:
I wonder why did the panelists include this bit, though:The Panel finds that the Complainant’s failure to do so, irrespective of whether or not the failure was intentional (as to which the Panel makes no finding), constitutes an abuse of the Administrative Proceeding. The Reverse Domain Name Hijacking allegation succeeds.
Save face, maybe?This is not to say, of course, that the Federal Communications Commission for example would in such a situation necessarily be found liable to a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.








