Posts from — May 2009
May 18, 2009 No Comments
May 6, 2009 No Comments
Are there standards which UDRP Panelists are held to? Is there protection and balance built in to the system that protects both complainant and respondant?
Sure, if a person loses their domain name, no matter the circumstances, it might be expected to hear a cry of foul or vent about it not being fair or being weighted against the respondant.
One might want to initially dismiss these claims, but unfortunately the patern is that more and more frequently there are cases that the panelist appears to be on complainant autopilot.
Case in point. In Andrew Alleman’s article today on Domain Name Wire entitled UDRP Arbitration: A Case of Laziness? he describes circumstances of some questionable tactics both by the claimant’s selective omissions of activity and a perception of the panelist’s bias that is hard to argue with.
Another panelist has been showing a pattern of finding for the complainant under questionable circumstances, and even in the presence of irrefutable dissent and presence of pattern reverse hijacking on 3 party panels.
Filing UDRP is largely done by intellectual property interest. There are clear cases and not so clear cases.
Is it the absence of financial consideration that makes panelists operate in a mindset where volume makes up for the fees involved? Rushing does not improve quality or balance, at least not for the average domain name owner who is challenged with the loss of their domain name while also being hassled with the legal fees and other costs of defense.
Although statistically the percentage of filings versus the number of domains registered has been a declining number, a growing number of UDRP are filed where the complainant is awarded the domain name. Read this to mean that I am implying the system is broken and biased towards trademark and big business interests.
Built in to the IRT (authored largely by the intellectual property interests that are using the UDRP system to retrieve domain names from registrants) are provisions for an accellerated process for ‘clear cases’, where the filing costs are lower (as little as $2/name).
There is merit to getting illegal activity taken offline as quickly as possible, such as phishing. Unless there is a balanced component to this new process, panelists who might be statistically inclined to find for the complainant would with greater frequency be sought for these accellerated proceedings.
If unchecked, any bias, when mixed with the low cost per name would drive volume decisions that could have further skew of balance.
May 6, 2009 1 Comment
We’re back and better than before. We’ll have commentary from noted experts in the field of domain name law as well as panelists (and I am sure comments from the public) as we re-launch UDRPLaw.net.
-The Anonymous Coward Admin
(hiding behind privacy whois)
May 1, 2009 Comments Off