Respondent Offered to Transfer Domains for $50.20 This case highlights how the UDRP is not intended to be a trademark court. Its mandate is strictly limited to resolving cases where a domain name was registered in bad faith, i.e. targeting of a trademark owner’s mark and goodwill. Cases which involve a determination of who has “better” rights or whether trademark …
ICA 2025: A Year of Impact
As we wrap up the year, we wanted to take a moment to look back at what 2025 looked like for the ICA – and thanks to all of you, it was a busy and meaningful one. Here’s a snapshot of what we accomplished together this year, along with a bit of context on why this work matters. Advocacy & …
Panel: “Sloppy, Incomplete” Complaint “Overstates” Complainant’s Case – vol. 5.51
Panel: “Sloppy, Incomplete” Complaint “Overstates” Complainant’s Case We are clearly at the point where Panels will not tolerate sloppy and incomplete pleadings. As noted by the Panel, “the Factual Background section of the Complaint comprises two paragraphs” [and] the Bad Faith section does not address the obvious difficulty that the disputed Domain Name was registered decades before the Complainant or …
Minority Panelist Would Have Found RDNH – vol. 5.50
Minority Panelist Would Have Found RDNH Despite the law being clear, some Complainants still try to rely upon a merely pending trademark application. In this case, the Complainant initially relied on an EU trademark application. As the Panel noted, “it is well established in UDRP jurisprudence and confirmed by WIPO Overview 3.0 that a pending trademark application would not by …
Panel Finds RDNH Despite No Response Filed – vol. 5.49
Panel Finds RDNH Despite No Response Filed This case reminds us once again, that RDNH can and should be found in appropriate circumstances, even when not requested by a Respondent. This is particularly clear when a Respondent has not even responded – and therefore could not have requested RDNH – yet RDNH is still found by the Panel. In finding …
Welcoming James Bladel to the ICA Board of Directors
The ICA is pleased to announce that James Bladel, GoDaddy’s Vice President of Public Policy, has joined the ICA Board of Directors. James steps into the seat previously held by Paul Nicks, who retired from GoDaddy last month after many years of dedicated service to both the company and the ICA community. We are deeply grateful to Paul for …
WIPO and ICA Conclude Comprehensive Review of the UDRP
We are proud to announce that the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO Center) and the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) have successfully completed their collaborative project reviewing the UDRP. You can read the Final Report here. This initiative was driven by a robust international process that included nearly a dozen consultations with industry leaders, legal experts, and …
Panel: Complainant Cited “Nonexistent Cases” Resulting in “Suite of Massive and Misleading Errors” – vol. 5.48
Panel: Complainant Cited “Nonexistent Cases” Resulting in “Suite of Massive and Misleading Errors” It is well-established that a Respondent need not expressly make a request for RDNH in order for a Panel to consider the issue sui sponte. Indeed, as noted in UDRP Perspectives at 4.1, a Panel will not have satisfactorily discharged its duty under the UDRP without an …
GoDaddy Extends Special Offer to Domain Discount Club Members for ICA Membership
We’re excited to share that GoDaddy, one of our Platinum members, is extending an exclusive offer to its Domain Discount Club (DDC) members: $100 off a new ICA membership for the first year. This promotion is available to new members only and applies to annual individual and associate memberships. In addition, new individual ICA members also receive a 50% discount …
Rapper Tried to ‘Reverse Hijack’ Domain Name – vol. 5.47
Rapper Tried to ‘Reverse Hijack’ Domain Name This case contains several notable aspects. The Panel provides us with a helpful reminder of what the WIPO Overview says about “Rights and Legitimate Interest”: WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.10.2 indicates that “For a respondent to have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name comprising an acronym, the respondent’s evidence supporting its …