SHIL.COM  
 

Indian Companies found to be
Reverse Domain Name Hijackers.

 
 
 
  The Ramifications of an RDNH Finding.

As the article “The Hidden Perils of Filing a Baseless UDRP Complaint” highlights, there are consequence in being found to be a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker:

"Although the UDRP does not impose any actual penalty on those found guilty of attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking beyond censure, an RDNH finding may nevertheless have significant consequences that result in reputational damage to the complainant and the complainant's counsel, and at times even financial costs to the complainant. A finding of RDNH therefore may indeed play a role in deterring frivolous filings."
 
 
 
 

Anand & Anand, India have been the lawyers representing Complainants in THREE CASES resulting in RDNH.

Case No. D2013-1360 Complaint denied with RDNH 
The disputed domain name croma.com
The Complainant is Infiniti Retail Limited of Mumbai, India, represented by Anand & Anand, India.
The Respondent is John Cromwell /Croma Web Services of Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America, represented by UDRP POLICE DBS, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

India Giant TATA Files UDRP On 17 Year Old Domain Croma.com

Indian electronics retailer Croma guilty of reverse domain name hijacking Croma went after a domain registered a decade before its existence.

Infiniti Retail Limited of Mumbai, India, represented by Anand & Anand, India GUILTY RDNH of Croma.com

Case No. D2013-2094  Complaint denied with RDNH 
The disputed domain name rpglife.com
The Complainant is RPG Life Sciences Ltd. of Mumbai, India, represented by Anand & Anand, India.
The Respondent is James Mathe of Greenfield, Wisconsin, United States of America, represented by UDRP POLICE DBS, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

RPG Life Sciences Ltd guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

RPG Life Sciences Ltd. of Mumbai Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

RPG Life Sciences Ltd. of Mumbai Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

RPG Life Sciences Ltd. Represented by Anand & Anand, India AGAIN!!….GUILTY!! Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Case No. D2018-2325  Complaint denied with RDNH 
The disputed domain name indianhotels.com
Complainant is The Indian Hotels Company Limited of Mumbai, India, represented by Anand & Anand, India.
Respondent is Roger Price of Guildford, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), self-represented.

Third RDNH involving Indian law firm  …and its managing partner is a WIPO panelist.

IndianHotels.com UDRP : Complainant found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

No vacancy: hotel giant tries (and fails) to hijack domain name

Mumbai Hotelier Found Guilty Of RDNH

 
 
 
 

DePenning & DePenning, India have been the lawyers representing Complainants in THREE CASES resulting in RDNH.

Case No. D2017-2549 Complaint denied with RDNH 
The disputed domain name bosch.net
The Complainant is Robert Bosch GmbH of Stuttgart, Germany, represented by DePenning & DePenning, India.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Tucows.com Co of Toronto, Canada, represented by John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq., United States of America.

Tucows gets RDNH ruling against Bosch after sloppy UDRP filing

Case No. D2018-2339 Complaint denied with RDNH 
The disputed domain name ceate.com
The Complainant is CEAT Limited of Mumbai, India, represented by DePenning & DePenning, India.
The Respondent is DNS Administrator, Cykon Technology Limited, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China, represented by Muscovitch Law P.C., Canada.

CEAT tire company fabricated evidence, panel determines
 

Case No. D2019-2642  Complaint denied with RDNH  
The disputed domain name nalligroup.com 
The Complainant is Nalli Chinnasami Chetty, India, represented by DePenning & DePenning, India.
The Respondent is Anthony Nalli, FourPoints Multimedia Corp, Canada.

Another reverse domain hijacking finding against DePenning & DePenning

A Stain Of Bad Press For Clothing Maker After RDNH Ruling

 
 

Case No. D2021-1352 Complaint denied with RDNH 
The disputed domain name machani.com
The Complainant is Machani Infra Development Corporation Private Limited, India represented by IndusLaw, India.
The Respondent is K, Anand, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cylaw Solutions, India.

Indian firm tries reverse domain hijacking a common surname.

 
 

Case No. D2016-1349 Complaint denied with RDNH 
The disputed domain name unmail.com
The Complainant is Intellect Design Arena Limited of Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, represented by S Eshwar Consultants, India.
The Respondent is Moniker Privacy Services of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States of America (“USA”) / David Wieland, iEstates.com, LLC of Chicago, Illinois, USA, represented by Muscovitch Law P.C., Canada.

Zak Muscovitch gets reverse domain name hijacking win

 
 

Case No. D2013-1238  Complaint denied with RDNH 
The disputed domain name corediagnostics.com
The Complainant is M/s. Core Diagnostics of Gurgaon, India, represented internally.
The Respondent is Herr Guenter Keul of Steinfurt, Germany.

Core Diagnostics of Gurgaon India, Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Core Diagnostics of Gurgaon, India Tries to Reverse Hijack CoreDiagostics.com and LOSES! My Turn

Core Diagnostics of Gurgaon India, Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

 
 

Case No. D2013-1656  Complaint denied with RDNH 
The disputed domain name woodland.com
The Complainant is Aero Club of New Delhi, India, represented by Lall & Sethi Advocates, India.
The Respondent is Domain Admin - DomainGrabber.com of Dallas, Texas, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Pezzulli Barnes, LLP, USA.

Aero Club of New Delhi, India Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on 14 Year Old Woodland.com

Tony Willoughby finds another company guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Aero Club of New Delhi, India Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

 
 
 
  Case No. D2017-0675 Complaint denied with RDNH
The disputed domain name hakoba.com
The Complainant is Hakoba Lifestyle Limited of Mumbai, India, represented by Vishal Rajkumar Sekhani, India.
The Respondent is Mukesh Shah of Floral Park, New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Steven Rinehart, United States.  

Reverse domain name hijacking in Hakoba Saree case

RDNH finding in Hakoba.com UDRP

Hakoba Saree case of reverse domain name hijacking ends in guilty verdict for Mumbai company


 
 
 
  Case No. D2020-3416 Complaint denied with RDNH
The disputed domain name(s) hsil.com & shil.com
The Complainants are HSIL Limited, Somany Home Innovation Limited / SHIL Ltd and Brilloca Limited, India, represented by Manav Gupta, India.
The Respondent is GOTW Hostmaster, Get On The Web Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq., United States of America.

RDNH on HSIL.com and SHIL.com UDRP

Reverse domain name hijacking in four letter domains case

Shil.com offers four points of advice to RDNH wannabes

 
 
 
 

Case No. D2021-0360 Complaint denied with RDNH 
The disputed domain name shaktiman.com
The Complainant is Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited, India, represented by Law office of H K Acharya & Company, India.
The Respondent is Anuj Bhargava, Anroh Global Services Pvt. Ltd., India.

Reverse domain name hijacking in Shaktiman.com dispute. India firm tries reverse domain name hijacking.

 
 
 
  Home Page www.SHIL.com 

 
 
 
  Case Denied, but no outright RDNH decision.
Case No. D2019-2073 Complaint denied. One of the three panelists determined that this was a case of reverse domain name hijacking.
The disputed domain name  carehealthinsurance.com
The Complainant is Religare Health Insurance Company Limited, India, represented by Saikrishna & Associates, India.
The Respondent is Name Administration Inc., Domain Administrator, Grand Cayman, represented by John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq., United States of America.

Frank Schilling wins cybersquatting dispute Indian insurance company falls short in UDRP

India: Reverse Domain Hijacking- Care-Full Who You Pick!

 
   
 
 
  The Complainant was in Germany but represented by Indian Law Firm.
Case No. D2021-1757 Complaint denied with RDNH
The disputed domain name  pumaexports.com
The Complainant is Puma SE, Germany, represented by RNA IP Attorneys, India.
The Respondent is Puma, Exports Pvt Ltd, India.

PumaExports.com: German sports giant hit with a Reverse Domain Hijacking findi.

Sportswear company Puma tries reverse domain name hijacking.