UDRP

This article is neutral, but is sponsored by Donuts, a Registry established by industry pioneers that has applied for more than 300 New gTLDs. Read more about their plans here.

ICANNWiki Bronze Sponsor

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.

Overview

The UDRP are policies which apply in 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 registrations 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.

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 were adopted to supplement the UDRP Policy and Rules. Additional dispute resolution policies may apply in specific circumstances for individual TLDs.

List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers

All UDRP filings should be made with dispute resolution providers approved by ICANN, which include:

• Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre
• National Arbitration Forum
• Czech Arbitration Court
• WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
• Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution

UDRP Disputes

Under the UDRP Policy and Rules, disputes are considered valid and eligible for mandatory administrative proceedings if the complaint is able to establish the following conditions:

1. The trademark is damaged as a result of an identical or confusingly similar domain name
2. The current registrant does not have any relevant interests regarding the domain name
3. The current registrant uses the domain name in "bad faith"

The following are the three major circumstances of bad faith domain name registrations:

• domain names are registered for the primary purpose of selling, renting or transferring the domain names registration to a complainant (trademark owner or competitor) for a huge amount of money
• domain names are registered in order to damage the business of a competitor
• domain names are used to intentionally confuse and attract consumers to your website or other websites for commercial gains

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.

WIPO UDRP Panel Decisions

You can find the Index of of UDRP Panel Decisionshere

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 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. 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.

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. 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. 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."

You can find the UDRP Panel decisions related to the 22 domain names here

ICA's Request for Investigation on NAF UDRP Decisions

In February, 2012, the 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

According to ICA Counsel 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"

Controversy

A common complaint about the UDRP process is that decisions from UDRP panels or individual arbitrators can be very inconsistent, or even 'inexplicable'.

External links

• UDRP, a success story: A Rebuttal to the Analysis and Conclusions of Professor Milton Mueller in “Rough Justice” PDF