Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) is a finding that a UDRP panel can make if it determines that the complaint was brought in bad faith.
It is described in section 15(e) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy:
If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or to primarily harass the domain-name holder, the Panel is supposed to declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. However, panelists sometimes do not issue a RDNH finding even when it appears clear on the facts, and there is no monetary policy or other sanction against an abusive complainant.
UDRP panels have cited various factors when making a determination of RDNH. These include:
• The Disputed Domain was registered prior to any trademark use by the Complainant;
• The Complaint failed to provide any evidence that the Respondent was specifically targeting the Complainant in its registration and use of the Disputed Domain;
• The Complainant should have been aware that the Respondent had a legitimate right to the Disputed Domain;
• The Complaint is used as a Plan “B” option to acquire a domain after commercial negotiations have failed;
• The Complainant attempted to deceive the Respondent in communications that preceded the filing of the Complaint;
• The Complainant attempts to misrepresent material facts to the panel, or fails to disclose material facts.
Further information on the RDNH can be found in the articles below.
http://www.rdnh.com (List of all identified RDNH decisions)
https://www.billhartzer.com/reverse-domain-name-hijacking-why-udrp-reform-is-needed/
http://www.domaininvesting.com/there-should-be-a-penalty-for-rdnh/
http://aplegal.com/blog/reverse-domain-name-hijacking/
http://domainnamewire.com/2009/07/13/an-arbitrators-view-of-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/