Reckitt Benckiser filled a complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center for the domain name rb.net.
On the other shore is the respondent Eunsook Wi,which claims that the complaint is an abuse of UDRP and asks the Panel to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
RB is used as a mark by Reckitt Benckiser and by third parties in connection with the Complainant’s commercial activities in the household, health care and personal care sectors. The Complainant also owns the following domain names: rbplc.com, rbbrands.com, rb.co.at, r-b.co.at, r-b.com.es, rbidealink.com, and rbposition.com."The first issue to be dealt with is the fact that the Complainant does not own registered trade mark rights in RB but claims to enjoy common law trade mark rights in this acronym, based on its own use and use by third parties of RB in connection with the Complainant’s commercial activities.The Respondent requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. This is defined in the Rules as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name." Moreover, paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides as follows: "If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.""
Therefore the complaint was denied.