The UDRP case regarding CHINAREADY.COM


China Ready and Accredited Pty Ltd of New South Wales, Australia found Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Highjacking on 9 year old domain name

  Law Firm Axis Legal (Australia) Pty Limited loses UDRP case in its attempt to unfairly grab 9 year old domain name for its client China Ready and Accredited Pty Ltd of New South Wales, Australia.

The WIPO panelist found China Ready and Accredited Pty Ltd of New South Wales, Australia represented by Axis Legal (Australia) Pty Limited to be Reverse Domain Name Hijackers.

The domain holder registered the domain name back in 2006. By the Complainant's own admission, the complainant (website had been using the CHINA READY mark since 2012 but notably almost six years AFTER the domain name was registered.

The panelist found that the domain name had neither been registered in bad faith nor was the domain name being used in bad faith.


The WIPO panelist stated:

"In this case, the Complainant correctly identified that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in 2006. However, as stated by the Complainant, the earliest date of its registration or use of the CHINA READY mark was in 2012."

The ruling on the case (China Ready and Accredited Pty Ltd v. Warren Weitzman, Caramba LLC) can be found at WIPO Case No. D2015-2164


In deciding that the Complainant was guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, the panelist's conclusion sums up by saying:

"As such, the registration of the Disputed Domain Name could not have been in bad faith. This point is specifically discussed in paragraph 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 that “[n]ormally speaking, when a domain name is registered before a trademark right is established, the registration of the domain name was not in bad faith because the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant’s non-existent right”. In the light of the above, the Panel considers that the Complainant could never have prevailed and that it is unlikely that this obvious deficiency in its case could have been overlooked by the Complainant, who is represented by counsel."


There are news stories about the domain name UDRP case on "Domain name investor gets RDNH win" and "Greenberg & Lieberman scores RDNH finding".

There are numerous sources for "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking".  Amongst these are and (which includes a current list of those found guilty of trying to Reverse Hijack a Domain Name in which they had no legal rights. In other words they tried to bully the rightful owners into relinquishing their property and forcing these innocent parties to spend thousands to defend what they already own).

See also Does the UDRP do more harm than good? and The UDRP: A Problem at the Core of the Internet


Back to (Quality Logo Products failed UDRP)