The UDRP case regarding INTERLIGHT.COM


International Lighting Corporation, Australia found Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Highjacking on 18 year old domain name

  Law Firm Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, loses UDRP case in its attempt to unfairly grab 18 year old domain name for its client International Lighting Corporation.

The WIPO panelist found International Lighting Corporation represented by Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone to be Reverse Domain Name Hijackers.

The domain holder registered the domain name back in 1997. The Complainant filed to register trademarks on the 21st August 2014 and the trademark was registered on October 6th 2015 and initiated the UDRP case in November 2015.

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 the view of the Panel, the present Complaint is one which should never have been launched and where the case as advanced by the Complainant was not likely to succeed. It was also presented in an incomplete manner. There are multiple defects in the case advanced by the Complainant."

The ruling on the case (International Lighting Corporation v. Beat Brunner and Interlight SA) can be found at WIPO Case No. D2015-2029


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

"Given the nature of the Policy and the fact that the Complainant was legally advised this was a case which the Complainant should have appreciated had no reasonable prospects of success. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."


There are news stories about the domain name UDRP case on "Lighting company Interlight is a reverse domain name hijacker".

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)