[2] Reverse domain name hijacking is most commonly enacted by larger corporations and famous individuals, in defense of their rightful trademark or to prevent libel or slander.
[10] Therefore, despite its express recognition in the UDRP, reverse domain name hijacking findings are rare and based heavily on the factual circumstances surrounding each case.
Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.org[12] (2013), Webpass, Inc. v. Paul Breitenbach[13] (2010), Urban Logic, Inc. vs. Urban Logic, Peter Holland (2009), David Robinson v. Brendan (2008), Decal v. Gregory Ricks (2008), Hero v. The Heroic Sandwich[14] (2008), Poker Host Inc. v. Russ “Dutch” Boyd (2008), FCC Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas vs. “FCC.COM” (2007), Liquid Nutrition vs. liquidnutrition.com (2007), Rohl, LLC vs. ROHL SA (2006), Her Majesty the Queen (Elizabeth II) vs.
[24] Nevertheless, due to the inherent animosity arising from being sued, courts generally hold prevailing defendants to a higher level of scrutiny, requiring vexatious or harassing conduct to shift attorney’s fees in their favor.
[26] Similarly, some advocates argue for stronger penalties to deter the unlawful deprivation of validly registered domain names,[27] such as fines and precluding offending trademark owners from filing cybersquatting claims for a designated period of time.