NH Resources LLC and Vaughn Crowe of Southlake, Texas, were just found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) on the domain name no-heat.net, despite the fact that the domain holder didn’t even ask the panel to make a RDNH finding.

The three member panel of John Swinson, Gaynell Methvin and David H. Bernstein rejected the Complainants claim of a common law trade mark rights in no-heat.com. The Complainants registered the domain name on October 21, 2004.

The domain holder registered the Disputed Domain Name on July 27, 2014.

The website at the Disputed Domain Name is headed “No Heat Chemicals”.

In short, this domain name dispute is part of a larger dispute between the Crowe brothers and their associated interests on the one hand and Mr. Holmes and Mr. Snodgrass and their associated interests on the other.

Although the Respondent has not made any submissions in relation to RDNH, the Panel believes it has a responsibility to independently consider whether the Complaint was brought in bad faith

“The Complainant certifies that the information contained in this Complaint is to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under the Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.”

The Complainants submitted a Complaint which told a selective and incomplete story.

The Complainants did not disclose the legal proceedings initiated by No Heat Resources DMCC in Tarrant County and by Mr. Snodgrass in Singapore. The deletion of the Respondent’s and Mr. Snodgrass’ email addresses was not disclosed. These facts are of central relevance to the questions of whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests and whether the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

The Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name and the registration was not in bad faith. The Complainants knew that there was no proper basis for the Complaint, but they filed it anyway.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel finds that the Complainants have engaged in RDNH.