Muscovich says

“The National Arbitration Forum has provided years of service in trademark and domain name disputes. Greater transparency is required in order to explain the concentration of cases amongst certain panelists. ICANN should revisit the Rules and require that panel appointment is always random. Otherwise, there will be an apprehension of an unfair process amongst some observers and stakeholders who believe that the selection of the panellist is of paramount importance and has a substantial likelihood of affecting the outcome of cases. To increase discussion of these and other domain dispute issues, we have created a free sign-up to receive daily NAF Case Update so that you can receive daily notices of new NAF decisions.”

They have compiled statistics which we hope will provide the domain name dispute community with an idea of the approximate participation levels of all NAF Panelists.

Link: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-report-domain-name-dispute-stats-reveal-concern-over-panelist-appointment-88825337.html

From the icann.org website:

On 30 October 2009, the ICANN Board approved a modification to the Implementation Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). The modified Rules now require UDRP claimants and respondents to provide documents to UDRP Providers in electronic form. The modified Rules also change UDRP Provider obligations in forwarding hard copy notice to respondents in UDRP proceedings: the original Rules required Providers to forward a hard copy of the UDRP complaint; under the new Rules, Providers do not have to forward a hard copy of the entire complaint. Providers are now only required to forward a hard copy notice that a UDRP complaint has been filed.

The modified Rules will become mandatory for all UDRP proceedings filed on or after 1 March 2010.

The requirements to file will change, and some providers may already allow this now.

Until 1 March 2010, UDRP Providers may elect to follow the hard copy notice (without complaint) requirement as set forth in the modified Rules. For all UDRP proceedings filed on or after 1 March 2010, all UDRP Providers must follow the updated requirements. At that time, even if a UDRP Provider’s supplemental rules contain provisions conflicting with the modified Rules, the modified Rules will guide the proceedings.

Providers may allow, but must not require, UDRP complainants and respondents to submit complaints and responses in electronic form prior to 1 March 2010. For all UDRP proceedings filed on or before 28 February 2010, complainants and respondents may elect to submit their documents in hard copy form, as set forth in the original Rules.

The Panelist determined that although WB had common law rights in the DAISY DUKE mark and the registrant lacked rights and legitimate interests in the DaisyDukes.com domain name, WB failed to demonstrate that the registrant had registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

“Respondent submits that his use of the term “daisy dukes” is not in bad faith because the term has become accepted vernacular for women’s cut-off shorts and this term has been used in that connotation to attract people to this pornographic web site. The best evidence submitted by Respondent in support of that position is his submission in evidence of the lyrics of a 1992 song “Dazzey Duks” by rap artist Duice. The song repeatedly uses this term to refer to cut-off shorts and makes no reference to the Dukes of Hazzard television series. Complainant does not address this evidence in its Additional Submission and presents no counter-arguments regarding its significance. The Panel finds that this piece of unrefuted evidence slightly tips the balance in favor of Respondent.” 

The Panelist overlooked the fact that the meaning of of the term “daisy dukes” is taken directly from the clothing (or lack thereof) worn by and popularized by the DAISY DUKE character in the television series.

This case is probably headed to federal court.

Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc. v. R Schwartz d/b/a Virtual Dates Inc., NAF Case FA608636 (Jan. 26, 2006). 

“‘Notwithstanding the unique effectiveness of the UDRP as a global remedy against cybersquatting, the fact that WIPO’s caseload in 2005 was the highest in four years and that many of these cases concern recently registered domain names, underlines the need for continued vigilance by intellectual property owners,’ said Mr. Francis Gurry, Deputy Director General of WIPO who oversees the work of the Center. He further noted that, while WIPO’s experience shows that UDRP disputes are heavily concentrated in the .com domain, attention must also be paid to the establishment of robust preventive mechanisms against abusive registration in new gTLDs. ‘If domain names are randomly attributed in new domains, intellectual property owners will be forced to compete with cybersquatters for their own trademarks – unless additional preventive safeguards are introduced,’ he added.”

Raisio plc and Town of Raisio v. Lee Joohee, Yang Youngho, WIPO Case D2005-1041 (Dec. 14, 2005).

Update – At first glance, changes include an increase in the supplemental filing fee from $250 to $400 (with a new proof of service requirement), a new $100 re-initiation fee, and increased filing fees. For 1-2 domain names, the new filing fee is $1300 (from $1150).

No response was filed by Dadha, and Panelist John J. Upchurch ordered the domain names transferred to the five co-complainants. The decision may be the first UDRP action involving five co-complainants.

Glaxo Group Limited, SmithKline Beecham PLC, SmithKline Beecham Corp., BW USA, Inc. & SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc. v. Pradeep Dadha, NAF Case FA514979 (Aug. 24, 2005).