UDRP Case Summaries

UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) was established and adopted at ICANN’s inception as a dispute resolution policy to resolve disputes between trademark holders and domain owners more quickly and cost-effectively than judicial litigation.

More about UDRP

Subscribe to the Weekly UDRP Digest

Drawing an Inference of Bad Faith from An Asking Price – Vol. 4.23

June 11, 2024
Drawing an Inference of Bad Faith from An Asking Price The Converse .co dispute is directly on the fault line created by the different perspectives of a domain investor and a brand owner as to what is, or is not, permissible under the UDRP. It would make a great moot UDRP session, in the model of the one on redball.com

Supplemental Registration Fails – Vol. 4.22

June 4, 2024
Supplemental Registration Fails This case demonstrates how the particular facts matter, especially when scrutinized by a Panel. If the Complainant had a registered trademark for LEGALNOW in connection with legal services, had prominently used the mark on its website, and had provided evidence that it was very well known, the outcome would have been different. (continue reading commentary).  SIGN UP

What’s Going on with the Passive Holding Doctrine? – vol 4.21

May 28, 2024
What’s Going on with the Passive Holding Doctrine? The Fairmont. Group dispute is more complex and nuanced than it first appears.  It raises four questions about how the UDRP is applied. Is the passive holding doctrine firmly rooted in the language of the UDRP? In a no-response dispute, how is the balance of probabilities determined for the allegation that there

The Inaugural Levine Lecture by Tony Willoughby

May 21, 2024
Join us for the inaugural Levine Lecture, part of our annual lecture series honoring Gerald Levine, recipient of the ICA Lifetime Achievement Award for his significant scholarly contributions to the UDRP. Gerry is the author of “Domain Name Arbitration” and the forthcoming “The Clash of Trademarks and Domain Names on the Internet.” We are honored to have Tony Willoughby, an expert

Failure to Amend Basis for Complaint Upon Revelation of Whois Details, is RDNH – vol 4.20

May 21, 2024
Failure to Amend Basis for Complaint Upon Revelation of Whois Details, is RDNH This case raises two particularly interesting issues. The first is whether a party that registers a domain name in good faith pursuant to an intellectual property rights policy can later be found to have registered the domain name in bad faith. The second particularly interesting issue that

Panel: “Textbook Example of When RDNH is Warranted” – vol. 4.19

May 14, 2024
Panel: “Textbook Example of When RDNH is Warranted” If you were the Panelist and if this case had been undefended, would you have checked the USPTO database yourself to ensure the veracity of the Complainant’s certified claim of having a registered trademark? Would you have closely examined the Complainant’s trademark registration to ascertain if it was on the Principal or

Food for Thought: 26-Year-Old Domain Name Transferred – vol. 4.18

May 7, 2024
Food for Thought: 26-Year-Old Domain Name Transferred Mere Possibility of Infringement Is Not Bad Faith… with the caveat that we are not privy to all of the information contained within the complaint, the FoodClub.com UDRP decision raises some important issues which in my opinion, should have led to a different decision… continue reading. We hope you will enjoy this edition

SMARTCONTRACTS .COM Confusingly Similar to SMARTCON? – vol 4.17

April 30, 2024
SMARTCONTRACTS .COM Confusingly Similar to SMARTCON? The Respondent is identified as “Expiry Assignment Service / Afternic, LLC – On Behalf of Domain Owner”. Afternic is GoDaddy’s aftermarket and auction business unit. This profile indicates that the disputed Domain Name’s registration expired, and it is in the post-expiration auction pipeline. According to GoDaddy, an expired domain name is removed from the

Complainant Stumbles on Creation Date vs. Registration Date, and RDNH Found – vol. 4.16

April 23, 2024
Complainant Stumbles on Creation Date vs. Registration Date, and RDNH Found This was tough luck for the Complainant but as the Panel noted, “the Complainant has not attempted to deal with the basic problem that the disputed Domain Name was first registered some three years before the Complainant was founded”. The Domain Name was created in 1995 – before the

Six Times Unlucky: Spanish Government Agency Fails Again to “Protect” Alhambra Monument – vol. 4.15

April 16, 2024
Six Times Unlucky: Spanish Government Agency Fails Again to “Protect” Alhambra Monument What this case ultimately came down to, was the Complainant’s conflation of the reputation of the monument itself, with the Complainant’s trademark. As the Panel observed, “there is nothing before the Panel that suggests that the Complainant would be entitled to conflate such notoriety and goodwill as it