From ICANNWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.[1]


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.[2]

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.[3]

List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers

All UDRP filings should be made with dispute resolution providers approved by ICANN, which include:[4]

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:[5]

  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.[6]

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.[7] 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.[8]

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.[9] 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. [10] 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."[11]

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.[12] [13] 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.[14]

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.[15]

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. [16] 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. [17]

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" [18]


A common complaint about the UDRP process is that decisions from UDRP panels or individual arbitrators can be very inconsistent, or even 'inexplicable'.[19][20][21]


El 29 de septiembre de 1999, ICANN publicó la Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy para recibir comentarios públicos. El proceso tenía la finalidad de hacer frente a los problemas derivados de la ciberocupación y proteger los derechos de propiedad intelectual. Este proceso no era solamente una preocupación o un producto de ICANN, dad que la OMPI había realizado esfuerzos por esta Política Uniforme. La política afirma que se va a transferir, eliminar o hacer otros cambios a cualquier nombre de dominio en manos de un domainer que:

  1. Es idéntico o confusamente similar a una marca de productos o de servicios en el que el demandante tiene derechos; y
  2. El domainer no tiene derechos o intereses legítimos respecto del nombre de dominio; y
  3. El nombre de dominio en cuestión ha sido registrado y se utiliza de mala fe. [22]

El mismo día, ICANN también emitió las Reglas para la Política Uniforme, que establece el procedimiento para la presentación y la respuesta a las quejas.

Esto también fue puesto a un período de comentarios públicos. [23] Algunos de los comentarios del público se pueden encontrar aquí.

ICANN aprobó el Política Uniforme en su reunión de noviembre de 1999, en Los Ángeles. [24]

Historia: ICANN 2.0

El enfoque de abajo hacia arriba de ICANN y sus revisiones periódicas estructurales conducen a la revisión de sus estatutos y la introducción de nuevas entidades y políticas. Una avalancha de cambios ocurrió alrededor del año 2000, cuando los cambios y las discusiones llevaron a la comunidad a hablar de "la ICANN 2.0".[25]

La Introducción de la ALAC

Una de las discusiones y proposiciones d el debate en torno a "la ICANN 2.0", fue la introducción de un cuerpo que podría representar a los usuarios individuales de Internet. Esto se conoció como el At-Large Comité, o ALAC, y si bien se introdujo finalmente a través de enmiendas a los estatutos en 2002, ya había sido un tema candente de debate durante años. [26]

Otros Comités

Muchas de las novedades en ICANN se lograron a través de la introducción de equipos de revisión; tales como la Comisión de Evolución y Reforma de ICANN. También se crearon otros comités con la intención de ampliar y especializar el papel de ICANN, como el Comité de Seguridad, que con el tiempo se convirtió en el Comité Asesor de Estabilidad y Seguridad. Ambos comités se les dio reconocimiento oficial en 2002. .[27] El impulso para la reforma también fue ayudado significativamente por el informe de Stuart Lynn "Informe del Presidente: el caso de la Reforma,"[28] que se inicia el diálogo sobre la reforma y que conduce a la creación de la comisión más formal.[29]

ICANN aprobó un nuevo conjunto de estatutos, que fueron elaborados por primera vez por la comisión antes mencionada y el Comité de Reforma, antes de ser enviado a los foros públicos. Estos estatutos pueden ser leídos here. Los estatutos no sólo definen más claramente la misión y valores fundamentales de ICANN, sino que también ponen en su lugar y mejora los procesos para su revisión y una mayor transparencia. El Comité de Reconsideración, Panel de Revisión Independiente., y el Ombudsman se fortalecieron como parte de este movimiento hacia una organización más transparente, capaz de defender sus acciones y decisiones .[30]

Otros Desarrollos


  1. UDRP Procedures
  2. Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policies
  3. WIPO Guide to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
  4. List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers
  5. Mandatory Administrative Proceeding
  6. WIPO Released 2011 Cybersquatting Stats ! 2,764 UDRP cases covering 4,781 domain names in 2011
  7. Wow: Judge orders UDRP transfers, including Apple typo, to be reversed
  8. ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION-Public Storage v. Texas International Property Associates
  9. Receiver asks for typo domains to be confiscated from Apple and others
  10. Receiver: “ICANN thumbing its nose at the Court”, asks court to find ICANN in contempt
  12. ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices
  13. ICA demands probe of “shoddy” UDRP decisions
  14. [http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1423229.htm NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman}
  15. ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices
  16. NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Nokta Internet Technologies / DNS Admin
  17. ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices
  18. ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices
  19. The Lowdown Domain Name Journal, retrieved 17th December 2014.
  20. UDRP a problem at the core of the internet Domainarts, retrieved 17th December 2014.
  21. Frank Schilling loses UDRP Domainbits, retrieved 17th December 2014
  22. Nombre de Dominio Política Uniforme de Solución. ICANN. Publicado 1999 29 de septiembre.
  23. Reglas para Uniform Domain Name Dispute Política de Resolución. ICANN. Publicado 1999 29 de septiembre.
  24. Overview of Domain Name Policy Development. Harvard Law.
  25. "ICANN 2.0 Meet the New Boss"
  26. comités / Comité ALAC / At-Large Asesor (ALAC). ICANN.
  27. ICANN Meeting in Accra Preliminary Report. ICANN. Published 2002 March 14.
  28. President's Report: ICANN – The Case for Reform. ICANN. Published 2002 February 24.
  29. ICANN Meeting in Bucharest Preliminary Report]. ICANN. Published 2002 June 28.
  30. Appendix A to Minutes ICANN Board Meeting in Shanghai. ICANN. Published 2002 October 31.
  31. ICANN.org
  32. Regular Meeting of the Board Minutes. ICANN. Published 2001 September 10.
  33. Preliminary Report | Regular Meeting of the Board - Rio de Janeiro. ICANN. Published 2003 March 27.
  34. Resoluciones aprobadas en Roma ICANN Reunión de la Junta | Reunión Ordinaria de la Junta, Roma, Italia. ICANN. Publicado 06 de marzo 2004.
  35. Aplicación AfriNIC de Reconocimiento como Internet Regional de Registro Público Comentario Foro. ICANN. Publicado 2005 14 de marzo.

External links