The UDRP case regarding OPTILEAD.COM



Optilead Ltd. of South Yorkshire, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Conrad Fahrenkrug, Chile loses UDRP case in its attempt to unfairly grab 9 year old domain name.

WIPO Panelist finds Optilead Ltd. guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.


The panelist agreed 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: "..... it seems to the Panel that this Complaint is without merit at all and was entirely contrived in order to obtain a domain name that someone else had bona fide registered many years prior to the commencement of the Complainant's business."

"Neither is there any evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Complainant's business operated under the Optilead name or mark at that date, or that the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant's name, mark, or business, when it acquired the disputed domain name. As a consequence the Panel fails to see how the Complainant thought that it could successfully argue that the disputed domain name had been registered in bad faith."

Optilead Ltd. represented by Conrad Fahrenkrug had their complaint denied by WIPO the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

The WIPO ruling on the case (Optilead Ltd. v. Christophe de Larquier) can be found at WIPO Case No.: D2014-0103


The panelist's concluding paragraph sums up by saying:

"The Complainant, coming from Yorkshire, should have known that this is not "cricket". The Policy is intended to alleviate cybersquatting and not as a tool for commercial bullying. The Panel considers that this Complaint is an abuse of the Policy and that the Complainant should have known better, particularly in circumstances that it had legal representation. Accordingly, the Panel makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking in this case."



There are news stories about the domain name UDRP case on "Optilead Ltd. engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking"

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)