WIPO Dismisses Redcat Pty Ltd's Complaint, Deeming it a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Recently, a WIPO panel dismissed a UDRP complaint filed by Australian hotel software company Redcat Pty Ltd regarding the domain name redcat.com, finding it a case of "reverse domain name hijacking."

According to the WIPO ruling, Redcat Pty Ltd filed the complaint on June 10, 2025, alleging that it had registered the "Redcat" trademark in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK on November 25, 2024. It claimed that the domain name was identical to its trademark and had been maliciously hoarded to hinder its legitimate use.

The Panel noted that redcat.com was actually originally registered by an American individual, Tom Phoenix, on October 7, 1996, and was continuously used for personal and business purposes (such as email). Terry, who claimed to be operating a consulting technology business in Oregon under the name "Redcat," provided evidence of the use of the email address in relevant registration documents, a 1997 Perl article, and a book published in 2000. After review, the Panel concluded that:

Although the domain name and trademark are identical, satisfying the "identical or confusingly similar" requirement of the UDRP,

the complainant failed to demonstrate that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests; rather, the respondent provided credible evidence of ongoing use.

The complainant also failed to provide valid evidence of "bad faith registration and use." In fact, the respondent had registered and used the domain name for years prior to the filing of the complaint, unaware of the complainant's existence.

Taken together, the Panel concluded that Redcat Pty Ltd's complaint "should not have been filed," lacking factual support, insufficiently prepared materials, and omitting key elements necessary for a successful complaint. Evidence indicates that the complainant initiated the proceedings despite knowing they had no chance of success, constituting a classic case of reverse domain name hijacking. The Panel ultimately dismissed the complaint and ruled that the complainant abused the UDRP process, constituting RDNH.