Client: Procter and Gamble ( USA )
Result: Procter and Gamble found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Reference: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-2179
In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.”