The UDRP case regarding Emerton.COM


Emerton of Paris is found Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Highjacking on 14 year old domain name

  Law Firm Gevers, Belgium, loses UDRP case in its attempt to unfairly grab 14 year old domain name for its client French consulting firm Emerton of Paris.

The WIPO panelist found Emerton of Paris represented by Gevers of Belgium to be Reverse Domain Name Hijackers.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in 2002, approximately 9 years before the Complainant commenced its business and use of the EMERTON name and mark in France.

The domain holder registered the domain name back in 2002. The Complainant first trademark for the term emerton was registered on October 10, 2011 and initiated the UDRP case in April 2016.

The 3 panelists 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:

"Following the initial refusal of the Complainant's offers for purchase of the disputed domain name the Complainant still attempted to obtain the disputed domain name by filing this Complaint under the Policy in circumstances that there was clearly no registration in bad faith, or evidence of targeting of the Respondent by the Complainant and therefore in which the Complaint could never succeed."

The ruling on the case (Emerton v. Peng Goh, Service Pro) can be found at WIPO Case No. D2016-0851


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

"The Panel also notes that the Complainant was advised by experienced counsel in these proceedings and therefore should have been aware of the prospective outcome if a decision was issued but still chose to file the Complaint. This has wasted the Respondent's time and resources unnecessarily and the Panel has no hesitation in finding that this Complaint amounts to a case of reverse domain name hijacking.."


There are news stories about the domain name UDRP case on French consulting firm tried to reverse hijack domain name.

The domain name UDRP case is also mentioned in the article Domain Names Identical to Trademarks But No Likelihood of Confusion

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)