---
id: "9cfd0adb-59c2-46e0-b4c7-aca9b0140c63"
kind: "link"
title: "WIPO panel finds reverse domain hijacking in hemocare.com UDRP case"
language: "en"
section: "legal"
date: "2026-10-13T13:54:00Z"
updated: "2026-10-13T13:54:00Z"
canonical: "https://tldlog.com/l/wipo-panel-finds-reverse-domain-hijacking-hemocare-com-udrp/"
origin: "master"
translations:
  es: "https://tldlog.com/es/l/grupo-expertos-ompi-declara-rdnh-caso-udrp-hemocare-com/"
  de: "https://tldlog.com/de/l/wipo-panel-stellt-domain-hijacking-udrp-fall-hemocare-com/"
  fr: "https://tldlog.com/fr/l/commission-ompi-retient-rdnh-affaire-hemocare-com/"
  it: "https://tldlog.com/it/l/panel-ompi-riscontra-furto-dominio-inverso-caso-udrp/"
  pt-BR: "https://tldlog.com/pt/l/painel-ompi-identifica-sequestro-dominio-caso-udrp-hemocare/"
  ru: "https://tldlog.com/ru/l/kollegiya-vois-priznala-rdnh-dele-domene-hemocare-com-udrp/"
  zh-Hans: "https://tldlog.com/zh/l/udrp-zhuanjiazu-rdnh/"
source:
  name: "internetcommerce.org"
  url: "https://www.internetcommerce.org/udrp-case-summaries/offer-first-udrp-second-complainants-own-letter-set-out-the-sequence-vol-6-41/"
  language: "en-US"
  date: "2026-10-13T11:52:35Z"
---

# WIPO panel finds reverse domain hijacking in hemocare.com UDRP case

## in plain words

A company tried to buy the website address hemocare.com through a broker but balked at the $15,000 asking price. It then filed a legal complaint claiming the domain owner was infringing its trademark. A panel at the World Intellectual Property Organization said the domain was registered in 2002, years before the company even had trademark rights, so there was no bad faith. The panel ruled the company abused the complaint process.

Deka Research \& Development Corporation filed a UDRP complaint over hemocare.com, owned by Aktan Kurtulmus of Türkiye, who registered the domain in December 2002. Deka holds a US trademark for HEMOCARE, filed in November 2017 and registered in September 2020, with first use claimed from July 31, 2019.

Before filing the complaint, Deka approached the Respondent anonymously through a GoDaddy broker, offering $1,000 for the domain. The Respondent’s broker quoted a $15,000 list price and a $7,500 floor. Deka countered at $5,000, this time citing its trademark registration and the UDRP itself, but the broker declined to continue negotiating. The domain currently resolves to a generic GoDaddy page that does not advertise it for sale, though archived pages and the current listing show a $15,000 asking price.

Deka argued the Respondent had not used the domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services and that the asking price far exceeded any registration costs, suggesting bad faith. The Respondent countered that “Hemocare” combines common terms with an independent medical meaning, that 78 other trademark records use similar names, and that the public listing was not aimed at Deka specifically.

Panelist John Swinson found no bad-faith registration, since the domain was registered in 2002, more than 15 years before Deka’s trademark application and 17 years before its claimed first use. Under WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.8.1, a respondent cannot be found to have targeted trademark rights that did not yet exist. The panel also found no evidence the Respondent later targeted Deka’s mark.

The panel further ruled that Deka engaged in reverse domain name hijacking, noting that Deka knew when it filed that the domain long predated its trademark rights, meaning its case had no realistic chance of success. The panel concluded Deka pursued the UDRP complaint only after its purchase attempt failed, having disclosed the Policy and its trademark rights during price negotiations before filing.

Source: [internetcommerce.org](https://www.internetcommerce.org/udrp-case-summaries/offer-first-udrp-second-complainants-own-letter-set-out-the-sequence-vol-6-41/)