Posts from — February 2010
The Chronicles of Electronic Commerce: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
The Social Science Research Network has a new title listed called “The Chronicles of Electronic Commerce: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy” by Zinatul A. Zainol.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is a unique concept under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. Its main purpose is to protect domain name registrants against unjustified claims of overreaching trademark rights by allowing domain name registrants, in some limited circumstances to retort against trademark owners.
February 22, 2010 Comments Off
February 18, 2010 No Comments
UPDATE 02/18/2010 12:47pm: We have confirmed these findings to be correct.
It has often been asserted by trademark holders that the new round of gTLDs will have a major and catastrophic financial impact on brands.
But beyond these alarmist statements, is there any empirical evidence to either back this up, or to prove it false?
After examining all UDRP cases done by WIPO and the NAF, sorted by TLD, the evidence shows that new gTLDs play a very minor role in UDRPs, and that to the extent that a TLD matters, .com more prone to infringement than other, newer gTLDs. Infringements, as measured by UDRPs filed (regardless of outcome), show that infringement broadly correlate to the number of domains registered in a TLD zone, and not to the newness or recency of a TLD.
The study also predicts that if 300 new TLDs were created (an estimate made by several observers, including ICANN), there would be 316 new additional UDRPs filed. When combined with the new Uniform Rapid Suspension provisions that will be required for new gTLDs, these cases would result in a total additional cost to trademark holders of $869,000, or less than $.10 per trademark registered worldwide.
The data shows that, for enforcement via UDRP and URS, assertions that brand holders would be faced with enormous costs have been substantially overestimated.
February 18, 2010 8 Comments
Hard copy notice to respondents in UDRP proceedings will become a thing of the past shortly, based upon a change that was voted into effect at the Seoul ICANN meeting last October.
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.
February 17, 2010 Comments Off
Elliot Silver, a well known and respected entrepreneur in the domain industry, recently compiled a list of the key domain name attorneys on his blog.
Understanding UDRP, and responding are some very important matters. Always best when in doubt to consult an attorney, and the list Elliot and the commentors have compiled is a great resource.
February 12, 2010 Comments Off
February 9, 2010 No Comments