Changes

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 '''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.<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/gtld/udrp/ UDRP Procedures]</ref>

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.<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/gtld/udrp/ UDRP Procedures]</ref>

==List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers==

==List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers==

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

All UDRP filings should be made with dispute resolution providers approved by [[ICANN]], which include:<ref>

[http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers]</ref>

[http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers]</ref>

* [[Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre]]

* [[Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre]]

==UDRP Filing Trends and Statistics==

==UDRP Filing Trends and Statistics==

Based on the latest filing trends and statistics released by the [[WIPO]] Center, 22,500 UDRP based cases involving 40,500 domain names (gTLD & ccTLD) were filed since the implementation of the UDRP in 1999. In 2011, the WIPO Center received 2,764 cybersquatting cases filed by trademark owners involving 4,781 domain names. [[cybersquatting]] cases increased by 2.5% compared with the number of cases filed in 2010.<ref>[http://www.domainnews.com/en/wipo-released-2011-cybersquatting-stats-2764-udrp-cases-covering-4781-domain-names-in-2011.html WIPO Released 2011 Cybersquatting Stats ! 2,764 UDRP cases covering 4,781 domain names in 2011]</ref>

Based on the latest filing trends and statistics released by the [[WIPO]] Center, 22,500 UDRP based cases involving 40,500 domain names (gTLD & ccTLD) were filed since the implementation of the UDRP in 1999. In 2011, the WIPO Center received 2,764 [[cybersquatting]] cases filed by trademark owners involving 4,781 domain names. [[Cybersquatting]] cases increased by 2.5% compared with the number of cases filed in 2010.<ref>[http://www.domainnews.com/en/wipo-released-2011-cybersquatting-stats-2764-udrp-cases-covering-4781-domain-names-in-2011.html WIPO Released 2011 Cybersquatting Stats ! 2,764 UDRP cases covering 4,781 domain names in 2011]</ref>

==WIPO UDRP Panel Decisions==

==WIPO UDRP Panel Decisions==

==Texas Court Overturns UDRP Cases==

==Texas Court Overturns 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 Inc. 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> The UDRP Panel found that the Receivers violated the rights of the legitimate trademark owners. For example, it three domain names contested by Public Storage are obviously confusingly similar to the trademark of the company. In this case, the UDRP Panel ruled in favor of Public Storage after the company proved that the Receiver used the domain names as "parking pages" linking to its competitors websites. The trademark of Public Storage is well known nationwide. Despite of the fact, the Receiver intentionally registered the domain names in bad faith.<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2010-1782 ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION-Public Storage v. Texas International Property Associates]</ref>

On January 10, 2012, Senior District Judge Royal Ferguson of the Northern District of Texas issued his final ruling reversing WIPO' decision for the UDRPs on all [[cybersquatting]] 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 Inc, to 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> The UDRP Panel found that the Receivers violated the rights of the legitimate trademark owners. For example, the three domain names contested by Public Storage were deemed confusingly similar to the trademark of the company. In this case, the UDRP Panel ruled in favor of Public Storage after the company proved that the Receiver used the domain names as "parking pages" linking to its competitors websites. The trademark of Public Storage is well known nationwide. In spite of this, the Receiver intentionally registered the domain names in bad faith.<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2010-1782 ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION-Public Storage v. Texas International Property Associates]</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  stay and abate the proceedings and to file a notice confirming that it has complied with the order granting the  

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 in this case and requested it to vacate its ruling, thereby 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  stay and abate the proceedings and to file a notice confirming that it has complied with the order granting the  

Receiver’s Emergency Motion to Stay." <ref>

Receiver’s Emergency Motion to Stay."<ref>

[http://bretbucket.s3.amazonaws.com/Order-ICANNStay.pdf ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MOTION TO VACATE]</ref>

[http://bretbucket.s3.amazonaws.com/Order-ICANNStay.pdf ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MOTION TO VACATE]</ref>

==ICA's Request for Investigation on NAF UDRP Decisions==

==ICA's Request for Investigation on NAF UDRP Decisions==

On February 2012, the Internet Commerce Association ([[ICA]]) sent a letter to ICANN requesting for an immediate investigation regarding the UDRP arbitration practices of the [[National Arbitration Forum]] (NAF) due to its recent ruling on two cases.<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref> <ref>[http://domainincite.com/ica-demands-probe-of-shoddy-udrp-decisions/ ICA demands probe of “shoddy” UDRP decisions]</ref> The first case was the Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman, wherein NAF ruled the transfer of the domain name hardwareresources.org to the complainant due to its argument that the domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark HR Hardware Resources and the defendant failed to respond to the complaint.<ref>[http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1423229.htm NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman}</ref>

In February, 2012, the [[ICA|Internet Commerce Association]] (ICA) sent a letter to ICANN requesting an immediate investigation regarding the UDRP arbitration practices of the [[National Arbitration Forum]] (NAF) due to its recent ruling on two cases.<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref> <ref>[http://domainincite.com/ica-demands-probe-of-shoddy-udrp-decisions/ ICA demands probe of “shoddy” UDRP decisions]</ref> The first case was the Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman, wherein NAF ruled the transfer of the domain name hardwareresources.org to the complainant due to its argument that the domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark HR Hardware Resources and the defendant failed to respond to the complaint.<ref>[http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1423229.htm NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman}</ref>

ICA argued that the NAF examiner failed to check the complainants USPTO filing wherein each relevant trademark were accompanied with the statement, ''"NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "HARDWARE RESOURCES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN,"'' which  means that the complainant has no right to the generic term  hardware resources. ICA pointed out that NAF should have dismissed the complaint and ruled that it was filed in bad faith and an attempted act of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under Paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP Rules.<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

ICA argued that the NAF examiner failed to check the complainant's USPTO filing wherein each relevant trademark was accompanied with the statement, ''"NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "HARDWARE RESOURCES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN,"'' which  means that the complainant had no right to the generic term  hardware resources. ICA pointed out that NAF should have dismissed the complaint and ruled that it was filed in bad faith and an attempted act of [[Reverse Domain Name Hijacking]] under Paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP Rules.<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

The second case in question was the Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Nokta Internet Technologies wherein the domain name autoownersinsurance.com  was transferred to the complainant. NAF ruled that the respondent lacks rights or has no legitimate interest to the disputed domain, which is confusingly similar to the complainants mark and the domain name was previously used by the respondent in bad faith. <ref>[http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1423534.htm NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Nokta Internet Technologies / DNS Admin]</ref> ICA argued that the second case is an example of gross procedural unfairness under NAF Supplemental Rules, which is in conflict with ICANN's UDRP Policy. <ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

The second case in question was the Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Nokta Internet Technologies wherein the domain name autoownersinsurance.com  was transferred to the complainant. NAF ruled that the respondent lacks rights or has no legitimate interest to the disputed domain, which is confusingly similar to the complainants mark and the domain name was previously used by the respondent in bad faith. <ref>[http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1423534.htm NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Nokta Internet Technologies / DNS Admin]</ref> ICA argued that the second case is an example of gross procedural unfairness under NAF Supplemental Rules, which is in conflict with ICANN's UDRP Policy. <ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

According to ICA Counsel [[Philip Corwin|Phil Corwin]], ''"NAF’s administration of the UDRP in the cases cited above appears to be seriously flawed and creates the appearance of substantial bias and ineptitude. ICANN has a responsibility to make serious inquiry into this matter and to take remedial action based upon its findings"'' <ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

According to ICA Counsel [[Philip Corwin|Phil Corwin]], ''"NAF’s administration of the UDRP in the cases cited above appears to be seriously flawed and creates the appearance of substantial bias and ineptitude. ICANN has a responsibility to make serious inquiry into this matter and to take remedial action based upon its findings"'' <ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

==References==

==References==

{{Reflist}}

{{Reflist}}

[[Category: Glossary]]

[[Category: Glossary]]

__NOTOC__

__NOTOC__