On 7 Mar 2001, Scott Gifford wrote:
Assuming that I'm correctly understanding what is meant by "reverse-hijacked", the most notorious case I'm aware of is "walmartsucks.com". This domain was taken from an owner serving up criticism of Wal-Mart, and given to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart apparently claimed that this domain name was so similar to their actual trademark, customers could be confused into visiting the wrong site, and ICANN somehow agreed.
I don't know where the official ICANN ruling is on this, but I recall seeing it discussed in a number of places at the time. Let me know if you can't find a reference, and I'll see if I can dig one up.
Personally, I would hope that the rules would be the same as if you were trying to start a new business or magazine with the name in the domain name (I am making no judgement on how close UDRP is to that ideal). By that criteria, I am sure that if you tried to start a company or magazine named "Walmart Sucks" you would hear from their lawyers and they would be equally successful. John A. Tamplin jat@jaet.org 770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave 770/431-9459 FAX Smyrna, GA 30082-3723