UDRP

False Expectations: Attorney’s Fees and Statutory Damages in ACPA Actions

There is a degree of dread in the investor community that prized domain names will be forfeited to trademark owners in proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Since the UDRP has no internal appeal mechanism to correct errors of law or judgment, the sole recourse is an action in a court of competent jurisdiction as spelled out in UDRP paragraph 4(k). In the U.S., this would be a district court under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).

Unfamiliarity and Unpreparedness in Proceedings Under the UDRP

There is a difference, of course, between asserting a claim that cannot possibly succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and being unprepared to prove a claim that may have merit with the right evidence. Still, there is also an overlapping similarity in that complainants are either shockingly unfamiliar with UDRP procedures and jurisprudence...

Revisiting Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The conduct that reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) was crafted to punish is "using the [Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy] in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name." There are several variations ranging from the plain vanilla, claims that should never have been brought – mark owners whose rights postdate the registration of the challenged domain name as in Vudu, Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / K Blacklock, D2019-2247...

Challenging Domain Names for Abusive Registration: UDRP and ACPA

There are predatory-domain name registrants, and there are registrants engaged in the legitimate business of acquiring, monetizing and reselling domain names. That there are more of the first than the second is evident from proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). "Given the human capacity for mischief in all its forms, the Policy sensibly takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties exhaustively.

Celebrating Twenty Years of the UDRP

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, commonly known as the UDRP, was first introduced on October 24, 1999, by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The UDRP is incorporated by reference into Registration Agreements for all generic top-level domain names (gTLDs) and some country-code top-level domain names (ccTLDs).

Dead Ends: The Achievement of Consensus in UDRP Jurisprudence

Like the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is consensus-driven; from the bottom up, not the top down. The result is a jurisprudence of domain names that develops in common-law fashion through Panel decisions that over time and through "deliberative conversations" among panelists resolve into consensus.

Recovering Domain Names Lost to Fraudulent Transfer

Domain Names composed of generic terms and combinations – dictionary words, random letters, and short strings – have achieved ascending values in the secondary market. DNJournal.com (Ron Jackson) reports on his year to date chart, for example (just a random sampling from the charts) in August 2019 joyride.com was sold for $300,000, in June voice.com sold for $30 million, in July rx.com sold for $1 million, and in January california.com sold for $3 million... The magnitude of the reported sales suggests that businesses have come to depend on resellers than go to the trouble of inventing brand names from scratch.

Satisfying the Evidentiary Demands of the UDRP

It continues to surprise that some counsel in proceedings under the Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) are unaware or oblivious of its evidentiary demands, by which I mean they file and certify complaints with insufficient evidence either of their clients' rights or their claims. Because the UDRP requires conjunctive proof of bad faith registration and bad faith use (as opposed to the disjunctive model of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act), it should be ingrained for counsel experienced in the jurisprudence to know they cannot hope to succeed with marks postdating registration of domain names.

The Question of Fairness in UDRP Decision-Making

In disputes under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), parties should be able to rely on Panels delivering predictable, consistent, and legally reasoned decisions. In large measure, this depends on Panels analyzing the facts objectively through a neutral lens and applying principles of law consistent with the jurisprudence. However, the results are not always seen by the losing party as having achieved a fair result.

What Modern Businesses Need to Know Regarding Geo Names and Jurisdiction in Domain Name Disputes

The Internet has provided an unprecedented number of opportunities while raising far-reaching legal issues. It has created a complex matrix of national laws, global circumstances and new definitions -- or, at least, definitions in progress. The turmoil over Brexit and the international implications of the EU General Data Protection Regulation are signs of the times; as are issues surrounding domain names.