UDRP

Certifying to Merit and Proper Purpose in Alleging and Defending Cybersquatting Claims

Parties to a UDRP proceeding must include a certification similar in U.S. practice to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and undoubtedly a feature in procedural codes in other judicial jurisdictions) "that the information contained in this [Complaint or Response] is to the best of [Complainant's or Respondent's] knowledge complete and accurate, that this [Complaint or Response] is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass... more

WIPO Updates GDPR Guidance for UDRP

Three months after implementation of the European Union's (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center has expanded and updated its already helpful web page with important questions and answers about how the GDPR is impacting the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). more

Supplementing the Record in UDRP Proceedings; When Acceptable?

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) limits parties' submissions to complaints and responses; accepting "further statements or documents" is discretionary with the Panel (Rule 12, Procedural Orders), although the Forum (in Supplemental Rule 7) but not WIPO provides for supplementing the record with the proviso that "[a]dditional submissions must not amend the Complaint or Response." For some panelists, Rule 7 contradicts the Policy. more

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. more

Early Disclosure of UDRP Complaints

Under the previous rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), domain name registrants that had a complaint filed against them were supposed to be notified of the complaint by the trademark owner that filed it. Then, a revised set of UDRP rules that went into effect in 2015 eliminated the complainant's obligation to notify the respondent. Instead, the new rules only require the UDRP service provider (such as WIPO or the Forum) notify the respondent, presumably after the registrar has locked the domain name, preventing any transfers. more

When UDRP Consolidation Requests Go Too Far

Although including multiple domain names in a single UDRP complaint can be a very efficient way for a trademark owner to combat cybersquatting, doing so is not always appropriate. One particularly egregious example involves a case that originally included 77 domain names -- none of which the UDRP panel ordered transferred to the trademark owner, simply because consolidation against the multiple registrants of the domain names was improper. more

When a ‘Response Fee’ is Required in a URS Case

Although filing fees in domain name disputes are usually paid for by the trademark owner that files a complaint, the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) contains a little-noticed provision that, in large cases, requires the domain name registrant to pay a fee to defend itself. The so-called "Response Fee" is only required in URS cases that include 15 or more disputed domain names. more

8 Facts About 3-Member Panels in UDRP Cases

Proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) can be heard by either a one- or three-member panel. Here are eight important facts that every complainant (trademark owner) and respondent (domain name registrant) should consider when deciding whether to select one or three members... Either party - complainant or respondent - has an opportunity to select a three-member panel... more

Differing UDRP Decisions Show That Facts Matter

"Past performance does not necessarily predict future results." That's what the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requires mutual funds tell investors. But it's also true about domain name disputes. Cases in point: In four recent proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the operator of a large bank won two decisions but lost two others, despite a track record of having won more than 30 previous UDRP disputes. more

Healthy Domains Initiative Isn’t Healthy for the Internet

We had high hopes that the Domain Name Association's Healthy Domains Initiative (HDI) wouldn't be just another secretive industry deal between rightsholders and domain name intermediaries. Toward that end, we and other civil society organizations worked in good faith on many fronts to make sure HDI protected Internet users as well. Those efforts seem to have failed. more

When ‘Confusing Similarity’ in UDRP Cases Gets Confusing

The first element of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) requires a complainant to prove that the disputed domain name "is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights." It's unusual for a complainant to fail on this first of three prongs, but one recent case demonstrates just how uncertain the UDRP can be sometimes. more

ADNDRC Launches “Guide to HKIAC Domain Name Dispute Resolution”

In celebration of Hong Kong Arbitration Week (15-20 October 2017), the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), the first ICANN accredited Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) provider based in Asia, will launch its landmark Guide to HKIAC Domain Name Dispute Resolution (the "Guide"). more

Recent Case in Federal Court Shows Inefficiencies of Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

A recent case1 from a federal court in Kentucky shows why the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1125(d) - the "ACPA") can be - when compared to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") - a relatively inefficient way of resolving a domain name dispute. Here is a quick rundown of the facts. Defendant owned a business directly competitive to plaintiff ServPro. Plaintiff had used its mark and trade dress since the 1960's... more

How Companies Can Use the UDRP to Combat Rising COVID-19-Related Phishing

Straightforward out-of-court domain name proceeding can provide efficient relief against fraudulent websites and email. Google has seen a steep rise amid the Coronavirus pandemic in new websites set up to engage in phishing (i.e. fraudulent attempts to obtain sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and financial details). Companies in all industries - not just the financial sector - are at risk from this nefarious practice. But one relatively simple out-of-court proceeding may provide relief. more