Domain Management

Post-UDRP, ACPA Actions Challenging Awards

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is not an exclusive remedy for cybersquatting, but it is by far the preferred forum. Direct actions in courts of competent jurisdiction, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in the U.S. are minimal in comparison, and it is rare for respondents to remove disputes to a court of competent jurisdiction before a UDRP decision (paragraph 4(k) of the Policy). Less rare (but not copious) are post-UDRP challenges under the ACPA.

.site Domain Names Eclipse .xyz in Dispute Proceedings

Despite the launch of more than 1,200 new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) in recent years, .com remains - far and away - the top-level domain that appears most frequently in decisions under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). But, some new gTLDs are attracting more disputes, including .site, which has become the new gTLD that, so far this year, has appeared in the most UDRP decisions. The rise of .site represents a change from last year, when .xyz was the most-often disputed new gTLD.

Proving and Protecting Rights to Domain Names

At their best, UDRP panelists are educators. They inform us about the ways in which parties win or lose on their claims and defenses. What to do and not do. In addressing this issue, I'm referring to less than 10% of cybersquatting disputes. For 90% or more of filed complaints, respondents have no defensible answer and generally don't even bother to respond. But within the 10%, there are serious disputes of contested rights (contested even where respondent has defaulted).

Is a New Set of Governance Mechanism Necessary for the New gTLDs?

In order to be able to reply to the question of whether a new set of governance mechanisms are necessary to regulate the new Global Top Level Domains (gTLDs), one should first consider how efficiently the current Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has performed and then move to the evaluation of the Implementations Recommendations Team (ITR) recommendations.

Trademark Registrations on the ‘Supplemental Register’ Don’t Count (in Domain Name Disputes)

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) has never required that a complainant own any trademark registrations to succeed in a domain name dispute, given that common law trademark rights (if properly established) are sufficient. But, as a pair of recent UDRP decisions reminds us, even some registrations are inadequate. The issue relates to the first element of every UDRP complaint, which requires the party seeking relief to prove that the "domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark...

No Time Bar, No Laches under the UDRP

Two Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) decisions posted this month involved domain names registered 20 and 21 years ago, David Duchovny v. Alberta Hot Rods c/o Jeff Burgar, 21 years and Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, 20 years. Complainants prevailed in both cases. The domain names stand out as being the oldest to have been found registered in bad faith, and transferred.

The URS Also Applies to These Top-Level Domains

The Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) is often described as a domain name dispute policy that applies to the new gTLDs. While that's true, the URS is actually broader than that. The URS (a quick and inexpensive policy that allows a trademark owner to obtain the temporary suspension of a domain name) applies to more than just the new gTLDs, that is, those top-level domains that are a part of ICANN's 2012 domain name expansion.

After 21 Years, Actor David Duchovny Wins His Domain Name

While plenty of UDRP decisions have made clear that a trademark owner's delay in bringing an action against a cybersquatter (often referred to as "laches") is typically not a defense, actor David Duchovny's decision to file a UDRP complaint nearly 21 years after the domain name davidduchovny.com was registered may set a record for the longest wait in a domain name dispute.

How to Dispute a Third-Level ‘Country-Code’ .com Domain Name (Such as nike.eu.com)

Shortly after I recently wrote about WIPO's new role as a domain name dispute provider for the .eu ccTLD, the Forum published its first decision on another type of "eu" domain name: eu.com. The decision involved the domain name nike.eu.com. What makes this case interesting is that it represents one of the few .com domain name disputes that includes a country-code in the second-level portion of the domain name.

Building a Case for Cybersquatting Under the UDRP

A number of recent UDRP decisions remind trademark owners (and counsel) that cybersquatting cases have to be built from the ground up. Each stage has its evidentiary demands. The first two demand either/or proof; the third, the most demanding, requires proof of unified or conjunctive bad faith registration and bad faith use of the accused domain name. Priority, which intuitively would be thought a factor under the first stage (as it is under the ACPA) is actually a factor under the third stage.