Jump to content

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

From ICANNWiki

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 | edit source]

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 abusive by third party registrants who intentionally register confusingly similar domain names in bad faith for profit. It is important to remember that the UDRP applies to all gTLDs and ccTLDs that voluntarily adopted the UDRP policy. [2]

The UDRP Policy provides the legal framework to resolves disputes between a domain name registrant and a third party regarding abusive registrations and use of a specific Internet domain name via a dispute resolution service provider. On October 1999, the ICANN Board adopted the UDRP Rules, which established the requirements and step by step procedures that needs to be followed during the dispute resolution process. [3]

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO Center)served as technical advisors to the ICANN drafting committee during the development of the UDRP Policy and Rules. The WIPO Supplemental Rules was adopted to supplement the UDRP Policy and Rules. Additional dispute resolution policies may apply in specific circumstances for individual TLDs.[4]

List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers[edit | edit source]

All complaints under the UDRP should be filed by entities with dispute resolution providers approved by ICANN which include:[5]

UDRP disputes[edit | edit source]

WIPO has processed approximately 17,000 UDRP related cases.[6]

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.

Reversed UDRP Cases[edit | edit source]

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.[7]

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.[8] 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. [9] 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."[10]

References[edit | edit source]

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=Uniform_Domain_Name_Dispute_Resolution_Policy&oldid=57109"