Indian Companies found to be Reverse Domain Name Hijackers


	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

	IndusLaw, India represented the Complainant. 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.

	S Eshwar Consultants, India represented the Complainant. 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

	Lall & Sethi Advocates, India represented the Complainant. 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

	Vishal Rajkumar Sekhani, India represented the Complainant. 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

	K&S Partners, India represented the Complainant. Case No.DCO2023-01Complaint denied with RDNH The disputed domain name innoviti.com.co The Complainant is Innoviti Technologies Private Limited, India, represented by K&S Partners, India. The Respondent is Richard Cardenas, INNOVITI S.A.S., Colombia. Indian payments platform Innoviti tries reverse domain name hijacking

	Manav Gupta, India was the lawyer who represented the Complainant 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

	H K Acharya & Company, India were the lawyers represented the Complainant. 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.

Indian Companies found to be Reverse Domain Name Hijackers.

Indian Companies found to be
Reverse Domain Name Hijackers.