Why didn’t this UDRP panel consider reverse domain name hijacking? – Domain name thread

The Respondent classified this case as a Plan B case, but the Committee did not consider it.

A three-person panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization rejected a UDRP filing against veho.com. I’m puzzled as to why he didn’t consider reverse domain name hijacking in the case.

Veho Oy Ab, a Finnish vehicle importer, filed a complaint against Orion Global Assets. Here is a summary of Veho’s previous attempts to acquire the domain:

In 2014, Complainant’s lawyer attempted to purchase the disputed domain name. Negotiations with Respondent’s broker ended in October 2015. In March 2016, Complainant’s attorney made another attempt to purchase the disputed domain name, offering USD 25,000. In August 2016, the defendant’s broker countered with $250,000. There were subsequent communications from the Respondent’s broker regarding the possible sale and purchase of the disputed domain name. In September 2021, Complainant hired a broker and offered USD 50,000 for the disputed domain name. The offer was rejected. The Complainant followed with an offer of USD 75,000, which was also rejected.

The respondent’s attorney, John Berryhill, noted that this was a “plan B” attempt to acquire the estate. Plan B is the name of reverse domain name hijacking when a business files a UDRP because it cannot purchase a domain at the price it wants.

While the panel ruled in favor of the domain owner, there is no discussion of reverse domain name hijacking. Perhaps the committee felt it was not warranted in this case, but it should have looked into it.