HSIL.COM
	HSIL Limited (now changed name to AGI Greenpac), India, are found to be Reverse Domain Name Hijackers. HSIL Limited (now changed name to AGI Greenpac), India, represented by attorney Manav Gupta, India, lost its UDRP case in an attempt to grab the 20+ year old HSIL.com domain name and were found to be guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
	The WIPO ruling on the case (HSIL Limited, Somany Home Innovation Limited / SHIL Ltd and Brilloca Limited, India v. Get on the Web Limited) can be found at WIPO Case No.: D2020-3416 The panelists' Decision summed up by saying: "For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. The Panel also finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.".
	HSIL Limited represented by advocate Manav Gupta are not alone, there are other Indian Companies found to be Reverse Domain Name Hijackers. See also www.SHIL.com
	News Stories: RDNH on HSIL.com and SHIL.com UDRP Reverse domain name hijacking in four letter domains case Shil.com offers four points of advice to RDNH wannabes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Attempted reverse domain name hijacking is an abuse of the administrative process HSIL.com: Loser of UDRP “forced” to change their corporate name
	What is Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)? There are numerous sources for "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking".  Amongst these are RDNH.com and HallOfShame.com
	The international 3-person WIPO panel (Luca Barbero Italy, Shwetasree Majumder India and Richard G. Lyon United States) refers to the conduct of the Complainants' legal counsel Manav Gupta: "In sum, the Complainant’s professional representative betrays an alarming unfamiliarity with the UDRP and the two decades of precedent under it, to the point of including the Registrar as a respondent merely for performing its non-discretionary function of registering an available domain name.  Such conduct in any court would result in a swift dismissal and appropriate sanctions for wasting the parties’ and the court’s time.  This Panel is limited to a find of abuse, which it readily imposes." Reverse domain name hijacking in four letter domains case – Domain Name Wire.
	Other Cases quoting the HSIL Limited, Somany Home Innovation Limited / SHIL Ltd and Brilloca Limited, India v. Get on the Web Limited case: The FA2104001941032 Case re domain name mahogany.com: "Prior Panels have expressed impatience with complainants and representatives whose submissions and arguments evidence little understanding of the evidentiary demands for proving cybersquatting. The UDRP is a formal legal proceeding and it is unacceptable for legal counsel to treat it otherwise. See Pick Enterprises, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, LLC, DomainsbyProxy.com / Woman to Woman Healthcare / Just Us Women Health Center f/k/a Woman to Woman Health Center, D2012-1555 (WIPO September 22, 2012) (“Regardless of actual intent, Respondent has been put to time and expense to address a Complaint that the Panel finds objectively groundless, one as to which this Panel believes ‘the complainant in fact knew or clearly should have known at the time that it filed the complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the UDRP.’”). The Panel in HSIL Limited, Somany Home Innovation Limited /SHIL Ltd., Brilloca Limited v. GOTW Hostmaster, Get On The Web Limited, D2020-3416 (WIPO April 4, 2021) states that “[i]n sum, the Complainant’s professional representative betrays an alarming unfamiliarity with the UDRP and the two decades of precedent under it, . . . Such conduct in any court would result in a swift dismissal and appropriate sanctions for wasting the parties’ and the court’s time. This Panel is limited to a finding of abuse, which it readily imposes.”) "  Hallmark loses cybersquatting complaint against mahogany.com
	The D2021-3776 Case re domain name BYFY.com: "The evidence, whether that of the Respondent (2013-2014) or as claimed by the Complainant (2004), shows that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name before Complainant commenced use of BYFY as a trademark. Complainant has not provided any evidence that it had a sufficiently well-known mark (e.g., by way of use in commerce) at some earlier date such that Respondent can reasonably be said to have known of Complainant’s mark when the Disputed Domain Name was acquired. Accordingly, there is no basis in the record for inferring bad faith registration on Respondent’s part. This is fatal to Complainant’s argument that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. See, e.g., Securus Technologies, LLC v. Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2021-3383; Cyarx Technologies Ltd. v. Taylor Robison, WIPO Case D2020-0595; HSIL Limited, Somany Home Innovation Limited / SHIL Ltd., Brilloca Limited v. GOTW Hostmaster, Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2020-3416."  BYFY.com UDRP Results in RDNH Byfy.com: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding By-fy.com tries to reverse domain name hijack byfy.com
	HSIL Limited changes name to AGI Greenpac HSIL is now AGI GREENPAC