Jump to content

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Marie Cabural (talk | contribs)
9,082 edits
Marie Cabural (talk | contribs)
9,082 edits
Line 15: Line 15:
# The current registrant does not have any relevant interests regarding the domain name;
# The current registrant does not have any relevant interests regarding the domain name;
# The current registrant owns the domain name in "bad faith." Bad faith refers to deception and fraud, the intentional action to deceive others.
# The current registrant owns the domain name in "bad faith." Bad faith refers to deception and fraud, the intentional action to deceive others.
==Reversed UDRP Cases==
On January 10, 2012, Senior District Judge Royal Ferguson of the Northern District of Texas issued his final ruling reversing the decisions of the WIPO under the UDRP on all cybesquatting cases filed by the original registrant of 22 domain names (Receivers) as early as 2010. Judge Ferguson ordered the domain names publicstorge.com, pulicstorage.com, puplicstorage.com and aplle.com; which had been transferred to the companies Public Storage and Apple respectively shall be transferred back to the Receivers. He also ordered the Australian based registrar Fabulous.com to disregard the default transfer ruling of the UDRP for all the remaining non-transferred domain names and to inform the court within two days that the court order has been fulfilled.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/01/12/wow-judge-orders-udrp-transfers-including-apple-typo-to-be-reversed/ Wow: Judge orders UDRP transfers, including Apple typo, to be reversed]</ref>
Prior to the final court ruling, the Receivers filed an Emergency Motion to Enforce stay and asked the court to order ICANN to reverse the UDRP decisions regarding the transfer of its 22 domains names.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/01/10/receiver-apple-typ/ Receiver asks for typo domains to be confiscated from Apple and others]</ref> The court ordered ICANN to stay and abate the UDRP ruling. ICANN responded that it has no authority to direct the UDRP to terminate its proceedings, only the WIPO has the power to do so. ICANN also argued that the court has no jurisdiction over it and requested to vacate its ruling granting the receivers motion to enforce stay. <ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2011/12/22/receiver-icann-thumbing-its-nose-at-the-court-asks-court-fo-find-icann-in-contempt/ Receiver: “ICANN thumbing its nose at the Court”, asks court to find ICANN in contempt]</ref> The court ruled that it has jurisdiction over ICANN and denied ICANN's motion to vacate the court's order. Furthermore, the court ordered ICANN to to stay and abate the proceedings and to file notice confirming that it has complied with the order granting the
Receiver’s Emergency Motion to Stay."<ref>[http://bretbucket.s3.amazonaws.com/Order-ICANNStay.pdf http://bretbucket.s3.amazonaws.com/Order-ICANNStay.pdf]</ref>


==WIPO and UDRP==
==WIPO and UDRP==

Revision as of 20:45, 26 April 2012

The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy, or UDRP, is a set of guidelines used by ICANN to resolve disputes regarding the registration of domain names.

The UDRP was adopted on August 26th, 1999. Additionally, a set of Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP Rules) were approved by ICANN on October 30th, 2009, followed by Supplemental Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which entered into effect on December 14th, 2009.[1]

Overview edit

The UDRP are policies which apply in case of various disputes between registrants and third parties as a result of the registration and use of domain names. Disputes under these policies may be filed with one of the approved dispute-resolution service providers for the given policy.

the UDRP was created in order to protect recognized brands and trademarks from abuse by third party registrants who should not be allowed to use, or have invested interest it, the given trademark. It is important to remember that the UDRP applies to all gTLDs. Additional dispute resolution policies may apply in specific circumstances for individual TLDs.[2]

UDRP disputes edit

WIPO has processed approximately 17,000 UDRP related cases.[3]

In order to be considered valid and eligible, the UDRP complaint must meet the following three conditions:

  1. The trademark is damaged as a result of an identical domain name;
  2. The current registrant does not have any relevant interests regarding the domain name;
  3. The current registrant owns the domain name in "bad faith." Bad faith refers to deception and fraud, the intentional action to deceive others.

WIPO and UDRP edit

The UDRP Policy provides the legal framework for the resolution of disputes between a domain name registrant and a third party regarding abusive registration and use of a specific Internet domain name via a dispute resolution provider. The ICANN Board adopted the UDRP Rules which present the procedures which must be followed for the dispute resolution in October, 1999.

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO Center) is such a dispute resolution service provider. In this way, the WIPO center acted as a technical advisor when ICANN was drafting the UDRP Policy and Rules. WIPO developed Supplemental Rules specifically for UDRP Rules and Policy.[4]

References edit

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=Uniform_Domain_Name_Dispute_Resolution_Policy&oldid=57089"