Home / Blogs

Say No to WIPO’s Proposal to Amend the PDDRP to Create New Law

This comment is being presented in my personal capacity and does not necessarily represent the views of my employer (Neustar, Inc.) and its subsidiaries or affiliates.

A number of comments to ICANN’s proposed Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Process for new gTLD Registry Operators support a proposal by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to hold a registry operator accountable for trademark infringement that occurs within a TLD if it “knowingly permitted, or could not have reasonably been unaware of” infringing domain names within the TLD. This is sometimes referred to as “Willful Blindness” and is used by trademark owners to hold third parties liable for contributory trademark infringement. Support for this proposal came from the International Trademark Association, the Intellectual Property Constituency of ICANN, the International Olympic Committee and other trademark owners and associations.

However, I believe this proposal represents a clear and present danger not only to domain name registry operators, but also to legitimate domain name registrants within a TLD who stand to have registrations canceled by a third party dispute provider (such as WIPO) if a domain name registry loses its TLD under the PDDRP. Simply put, WIPO’s proposal would not only contradict well established United States law, but would greatly expand the legal rights and remedies of trademark owners far beyond what exists today.

In the United States, with respect to whether or not domain name registries and registrars can be liable for contributory trademark infringement is well settled. The 1999 case of Lockheed Martin v. Network Solutions controls. In that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Network Solutions was not liable to Lockheed Martin for contributory infringement as a matter of law because it was acting merely as a domain name registrar in registering domain names. More specifically, it found that in order for a service provider to be liable under the doctrine of contributory infringement, the service provider must exercise sufficient control over the infringing conduct itself. See also Tiffany v. Ebay decided on April 1, 2010. If a trademark owner cannot establish that a service provider has sufficient control over the infringing conduct, then whether or not the service provider knew, should have known or turned a blind eye towards the infringing conduct, is irrelevant.

How does this apply to gTLD Registry Operators? Typically, a domain name registry operator only has contracts with domain name registrars who in turn have contracts with registrants (either directly or indirectly through domain name resellers). Registry Operators do not have direct contracts with registrants, which is also sometimes referred to as “no privity of contract”. Domain name registry operators merely acting as domain name registries have no direct relationship with domain name registrants and certainly have no control over any content on a domain name registrant’s website, email, etc. If the Lockheed Martin case found that domain name registrars had no control over registrants conduct, then certainly domain name registry operators, which are yet another step removed, have even less control over a registrant’s conduct. Therefore, if a service provider, like a domain name registry, does not have control over the conduct of a registrant, then in applying the Lockheed Martin test, it would not be liable for any conduct (including infringement) of one or more domain name registrants within a top-level domain. This would be the case regardless of whether or not the domain name registry knew, should have known, or even turned a “blind-eye” towards the infringement in its top-level domain.

How does this relate to the Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Process and WIPO’s proposal? WIPO’s proposal, if adopted by ICANN, would hold registry operators accountable for domain name infringement within a top-level domain if it knew, should have known, or was willfully blind to such infringement regardless of whether or not the registry had the ability to control the conduct of a registrant. Despite the fact that under US law such a standard could not be used as a basis of liability for a domain name registry, WIPO and other trademark owners would like to see ICANN adopt a “willful blindness” standard.

Stated another way, existing United States law does NOT support willful blindness as the sole basis for direct or contributory infringement for domain name registries and registrars that merely act as domain name registries and registrars. WIPO, INTA and trademark attorneys should not be able to use the proposed Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Process as a means to advance their own desires about what trademark law should be, but rather should only by trying to shape the Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Process into a mechanism that reflects actual rights that exist under trademark law. ICANN should not sponsor efforts where advocates of certain positions are trying to CREATE NEW LAW. Until such time that there is well established law to support WIPO’s proposal on willful blindness, ICANN cannot consider WIPO’s proposal to amend the PDDRP.

If a domain name registry itself (or through an affiliated entity) does have such control over the conduct of a registrant because it is doing more than registering domain names (i.e., it is the registrant of the infringing domain names or in some other way is profiting off of infringing domain name (above and beyond collecting registration fees)), then I believe the PDDRP can and should be used. This is precisely why ICANN correctly included language in the PDDRP requiring affirmative conduct by a registry operator to profit off of systemic infringement to hold a registry accountable, and did not include a willful blindness standard. In such a case, I do not believe that a registry should be immune from liability simply because it is the registry.

If you agree with me, your voice needs to be heard by ICANN. Although there is no open comment period on this, if you file one below, I will make sure it gets to the appropriate people within ICANN before it is too late.

By Jeff Neuman, Founder & CEO, JJN Solutions

He has been instrumental in providing policy assistance and advice in the fields of internet governance, intellectual property protection and domain name policy since the mid-1990s. Jeff has served in key business, policy and legal roles in the domain name industry for more than 20 years. The views expressed herein reflect my own beliefs.

Visit Page

Filed Under


Link correction for WIPO proposal Jeff Neuman  –  May 5, 2010 7:43 PM


here is the correct link to the wipo proposal.  Sorry about that.

Re: Link correction for WIPO proposal Admin  –  May 5, 2010 8:04 PM

Link in the post also corrected.

Jeff - I will agree with you. Konstantinos Komaitis  –  May 5, 2010 9:12 PM

Jeff - I will agree with you. Starting with the basics, the main problem with the PDDRP is the direction that it pushes Registry Operators towards - to become content providers in order to ‘survive’ potential law suits and an uneven competition within a new Registry environment, which will disproportionally seek to protect trademark owners and their interests. This is dangerous for individuals users and it raises crucial questions on free expression.
Another thing that we have to understand is the clear role of the PDDRP, which is to ensure that Registries do not abuse their contracts with ICANN and upset the registration culture. Another thing we have to understand is that under its current proposal the PDDRP is based upon the UDRP. The UDRP is a ‘relaxed’ system, which was intentionally designed not to replace traditional court adjudication and, therefore, it was never meant to provide rigorous review and analysis on complex and contentious issues of trademark law. The same goes for the PDDRP, which is simply not equipped to deal with such issues as ‘willful blindness’. So it is not only that WIPO’s proposal on the PDDRP seeks to create new law; it also seeks to create a whole new adjudication system, which will displace judicial reasoning, without providing the same guarantees of justice and due process.
So, I think you are right. We have to be extremely cautious and maintain a clear vision of what we are seeking to achieve with the new gTLD program. It is not an excuse to expand rights and re-define judicial boundaries; rather we should be seeking to maintain a balance to the interests of all involved and ‘willful blindness’ certainly does not achieve this.

Comment Title:

  Notify me of follow-up comments

We encourage you to post comments and engage in discussions that advance this post through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can report it using the link at the end of each comment. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of CircleID. For more information on our comment policy, see Codes of Conduct.

CircleID Newsletter The Weekly Wrap

More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet



Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API

New TLDs

Sponsored byRadix

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign


Sponsored byDNIB.com


Sponsored byVerisign

Brand Protection

Sponsored byCSC

IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPv4.Global