UDRP

When a UDRP Panel Infers Bad Faith from An Asking Price

In the Converse.co dispute, a three-member UDRP panel unanimously ordered the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainants, All Star C.V. and Converse, Inc., owners of the well-known brand CONVERSE for shoes and apparel. The panel drew the inference that the Respondent, by setting of an asking price of around $300,000 after having acquired the domain name for $306, was primarily motivated by a bad faith intent to target the Complaint.

ICANN Turning 25 - It’s the People that Make a Difference

Ali's invitation to post reflections on the past 25 years of ICANN is very welcome. No doubt, some will write about major shifts in how ICANN is governed, for example, the end of United States government oversight. While others will write about changes to the industry that ICANN has catalyzed, for example, the 2012 round of new gTLDs and the upcoming next application process.

Does the UDRP Interfere With Free Speech Rights? – The StopSpectrum.com Decision

How to properly balance the commercial rights of a complainant with the free speech rights of a respondent has challenged a generation of Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) panelists. Panelists have adopted a variety of approaches and consensus has been elusive. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy provides that a respondent may have a right or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name...

Smells like Cybersquatting? How the UDRP “Smell Test” Can Go Awry

The UDRP has the form of a substantive Policy, but it operates as a "smell test".1 If the evidence smells bad, the panel will likely order a transfer. If it doesn't, the panel won't. An aim of this article is to help improve UDRP panels' sense of smell when it comes to differentiating between domain name investors and cybersquatters. I will provide some insight into the business of domain name investing that I hope will be helpful to UDRP panelists in making more accurate inferences in disputes involving investors.

The UDRP “Celebrates” Its 500th Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Case

Today, for the 500th time, an expert panel under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy or "UDRP", issued a decision finding a Complainant guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or "RDNH". RDNH is an attempt to egregiously misuse the UDRP to unjustly seize a domain name from its lawful owner... To-date, the UDRP has adjudicated over 80,000 domain name disputes. The vast majority of them result in the transfer of a cybersquatted domain name to the rightful trademark owner.

Searching for the Meaning of “Registers” in the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)

Where outcomes depend on a word’s meaning, the first task is to define it. “Registers” which is one of the keywords in the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), is still in the process of definition. Its statutory context provides that a domain name registrant is liable to the owner of a mark if “it has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark … and (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name [corresponding to a mark] that … is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name [and] is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

What Due Diligence Satisfies Domain Name Registrant’s Representations (UDRP)?

Not infrequently mark owners in disputes under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) claim that respondents should have been aware that the domain names they registered corresponded to their marks; and from this, urge panelists to draw the inference that the registrations were designed to take advantage of their goodwill and reputation. To test this premise, we need to take a step back for a quick look at UDRP provisions. All it takes to acquire a domain name is to sign a registrar’s registration agreement.

Offering Price as Evidence of Bad Faith Domain Name Registration: A False (UDRP) Factor

I have pointed out in earlier posts that some panelists disapprove of the business of speculating in domain names. There have been a succession of decisions expressing this view beginning with <crew.com> discussed below. Forfeiture has been justified with a mixture of theories. If the offering price is allegedly "excessive" or the domain name is passively held, or the respondent has renewed its registration after the mark is first used in commerce, the panelists find respondents have engaged in unlawful conduct and must forfeit their domain names.

MarkMonitor Supports Brand Registry Group (BRG) Call for Preliminary Applicant Guidebook

During last week's ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum, the Brand Registry Group (BRG) held a very informative session about how ICANN can help potential applicants prepare for the next new gTLD round. Speakers during the session provided historical perspective that applicant guidebooks have regularly evolved over time as a result of community review and feedback provided to ICANN, providing concrete examples of how the current applicant guidebook was developed.

Multistakeholderism Is Working: Even in Exile

I'm happy to report (mostly) positive feedback on my last article that examined how the multistakeholder model tackled, and tackled well, Phase 1 of the review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms. While bad news may sell more clicks, a little good news from time to time also appears to be welcome. Good news also reminds us of how fortunate we are to have a private sector ICANN with a multistakeholder model of policy development...