UDRP

Fighting Phishing with Domain Name Disputes

I opened an email from GoDaddy over the weekend on my phone. Or so I initially thought. I had recently helped a client transfer a domain name to a GoDaddy account (to settle a domain name dispute), so the subject line of the email -- "Confirm this account" -- simply made me think that I needed to take another action to ensure everything was in working order. But quickly, my radar went off.

Post-UDRP, ACPA Actions Challenging Awards

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is not an exclusive remedy for cybersquatting, but it is by far the preferred forum. Direct actions in courts of competent jurisdiction, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in the U.S. are minimal in comparison, and it is rare for respondents to remove disputes to a court of competent jurisdiction before a UDRP decision (paragraph 4(k) of the Policy). Less rare (but not copious) are post-UDRP challenges under the ACPA.

Beware of Extra Fees in UDRP Proceedings

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is known as an inexpensive alternative to litigation (and that's true), but some proceedings can end up costing a trademark owner more than it may have expected. There are generally two additional types of expenses that can arise during the course of a UDRP proceeding: (1) extra filing fees for certain aspects of a case filed at the Forum, and (2) an increased filing fee if the domain name registrant wants a three-member panel to decide the case.

.site Domain Names Eclipse .xyz in Dispute Proceedings

Despite the launch of more than 1,200 new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) in recent years, .com remains - far and away - the top-level domain that appears most frequently in decisions under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). But, some new gTLDs are attracting more disputes, including .site, which has become the new gTLD that, so far this year, has appeared in the most UDRP decisions. The rise of .site represents a change from last year, when .xyz was the most-often disputed new gTLD.

Proving and Protecting Rights to Domain Names

At their best, UDRP panelists are educators. They inform us about the ways in which parties win or lose on their claims and defenses. What to do and not do. In addressing this issue, I'm referring to less than 10% of cybersquatting disputes. For 90% or more of filed complaints, respondents have no defensible answer and generally don't even bother to respond. But within the 10%, there are serious disputes of contested rights (contested even where respondent has defaulted).

Is a New Set of Governance Mechanism Necessary for the New gTLDs?

In order to be able to reply to the question of whether a new set of governance mechanisms are necessary to regulate the new Global Top Level Domains (gTLDs), one should first consider how efficiently the current Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has performed and then move to the evaluation of the Implementations Recommendations Team (ITR) recommendations.

Where to Search UDRP Decisions

Searching decisions under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is important - for evaluating the merits of a potential case and also, of course, for citing precedent when drafting documents (such as a complaint and a response) in an actual case. But, searching UDRP decisions is not always an easy task. It's important to know both where to search and how to search. Unfortunately, there is no longer an official, central repository of all UDRP decisions that is freely available online.

When a Domain Name Dispute is ‘Plan B’

While having a backup plan is usually a good idea, it's often not an effective way to obtain someone else's domain name - at least not when Plan B consists of a company filing a UDRP complaint with the hope of getting a domain name to which it is not entitled and could not acquire via a negotiated purchase. "Plan B" as a derogatory way of describing an attempted domain name acquisition usually arises in the context of a domain name that is not protected by exclusive (or any) trademark rights, or where the complainant clearly could not prevail in a UDRP proceeding.

UDRP and the ACPA Differences, Advantages and Their Inconveniences

The ACPA and the UDRP provide two separate and distinct methods for resolving domain name disputes. Both alternatives have many critics and proponents, but the true value of each will ultimately be determined by how well each combats cyber-squatting. Separately, the UDRP and the ACPA will probably work well to defuse most of the cyber-squatting that is currently invading the Internet. If combined together the UDRP and the ACPA can be a cost saving and effective way to prevent cybersquatting...

Trademark Registrations on the ‘Supplemental Register’ Don’t Count (in Domain Name Disputes)

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) has never required that a complainant own any trademark registrations to succeed in a domain name dispute, given that common law trademark rights (if properly established) are sufficient. But, as a pair of recent UDRP decisions reminds us, even some registrations are inadequate. The issue relates to the first element of every UDRP complaint, which requires the party seeking relief to prove that the "domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark...