Are We Getting Good Decisions by Top - Level Domain Name Dispute Resolution Providers?
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has offered unique solution to deal with disputes regarding the registration of internet domain names (so called trademark dilemma) in 1999. Uniform domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) delimits procedural rules to solve such disputes and to create non – binding decision (binding between involved parties) which approves / rejects the transfer of the domain name to new (trademark) owner.
This paper has to focus on the question whether we are getting good decisions or the decisions in similar cases are decided more or less randomly. It is necessary to focus on such question also because of the fact that ICANN is planned to be transferred to the global multi - stakeholder community this year. Is the decision making process ready for such a big change or is it easily suggestible? To try to answer this question it will be necessary to go through the history and activities of ICANN and to focus mainly on UDRP process. Comparison of the convenient trademark dilemma cases or statistics will try to show defects of the rules, which are pointing at problems not only recently but already for quite a long time.
The conclusion then is to articulate possible future development and to offer some recommendations of what is necessary to pay attention to.
Astro - Med, Inc. v. Merry Christmas Everyone! and B. Evans: Administrative Panel Decision. Case No. D2000-0072. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention: Administrative Panel Decision. Case No. D2001-0505. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
CANN, List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers, viewed 27 January 2015, <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/providers-6d-2012-02-25-en>.
Catherine, RE 2012, 'ICANN’s core principles and the expansion of generic top-level domain names', Int J Law Info Tech.
Classmates Online, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, individually and dba RaveClub Berlin: Administrative Panel Decision, Case No. D2002-0635, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
Cortés Diéguez, JP 2008, 'An Analysis of the UDRP Experience: Is it Time for Reform?', Computer Law and Security Report.
Donald J. Trump v. Mediaking LLC d/b/a Mediaking Corporation and Aaftek Domain Corp.: Administrative Panel Decision. Case No. D2010-1404. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
Ets Leobert, SARL v. Jeonggon Seo: Administrative Panel Decision, Case No. D2009-0004. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
FabJob Inc. v. Compana LLC: Administrative Panel Decision. Case No. D2006-0610. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
GEIST, M 2002, 'Fair.com? An examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in ICANN UDRP', Brooklyn Journal of International Law, vol. 27, viewed 20 January 2015, <http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf>.
Giga Pty Limited v. Elena Sadkovaya: Administrative Panel Decision. Case No. D2005-0976. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
Hörnle, J 2009, Cross – border Internet Dispute Resolution, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 193.
ICANN 2013, UDRP Providers and Uniformity of Process – Status Report 2013, viewed 23 February 2015, <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/uniformity-process-19jul13-en.pdf>.
ICANN 2014, Administrator of Domain Name System Launches Global Multistakeholder Accountability Process, Press Briefing Scheduled with Board Chair and CEO, viewed 25 February, <https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2014-03-14-en>.
ICANN, Get Started, viewed 20 January 2015, <https://www.icann.org/getstarted>.
ICANN, Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, viewed 26 January 2015, <http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm>.
ICANN, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, viewed 1 January 2015, <http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm>.
ICANN, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, viewed 21 January 2015, <http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm>.
INTA Internet Committee 2002, The UDRP by All Accounts Works Effectively. Rebuttal to Analysis and Conclusion of Professor Michaela Geist in “Fair.com?” and “Fundamentally Fair.com?”, viewed 23
February 2015, <http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAUDRPSuccesscontraGeist.pdf>.
Kelley, PD 2002, 'Emerging Patterns in Arbitration Under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy', Berkley Tech Law Journal, vol. 181, issue 1.
LEGO Juris A/S v. Linecom: Administrative Panel Decision. Case No. D2012-2068. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
McCarthy, K 2001, eResolution quits domain arbitration: Blames WIPO, viewed 27 January 2015, <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/12/04/eresolution_quits_domain_arbitration/>.
Mueller, M 2014, Rough Justice: An Analysis of ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, viewed 27 January 2015, p. 23, <http://ccent.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/roughjustice.pdf>.
Schaefer, BD, Rosenzweig, PS, Gattuso, JL 2015, Time Is Running Out: The U.S. Must Be Prepared to Renew the ICANN Contract, viewed 25 February, <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/02/time-isrunning-out-the-us-must-be-prepared-to-renew-the-icann-contract>.
Storey v Cello Holdings LLC, 347 3Fd370, 381 (2nd Cir NY 2003).
Strickling, LE 2015, Remarks by Assistant Secretary Strickling at the State of the Net Conference 1/27/2015, viewed 25 February 2015, <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistantsecretary-strickling-state-net-conference-1272015>.
Sweighofer, E 2001, 'A Review of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution of the Internet Cooperation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)', Austrian Review of International and European Law.
Hye Cho, S 2009, 'International Commercial Online Dispute Resolution: Just Procedure Through the Internet', ProQuest.
Two Way NV/SA v. Moniker Privacy Services, LLC: Domain Administrator. Case No. D2012-2413. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
UDPR, CAC‘s UDRP Supplemental Rules of the Czech Arbitration Court, viewed 23 February 2015, <http://udrp.adr.eu/arbitration_platform/udrp_supplemental_rules.php>
United Domains, New Domains. New Opportunities., viewed 20 January 2015, <https://www.uniteddomains.com/ntld/pre-register-newdomains/>.
Vaughan-Nichols, SJ 2014, 'Ready or not, here come the new Internet toplevel domain names', ZDNet, 29 January, viewed 20 January 2015, <http://www.zdnet.com/article/ready-or-not-here-come-the-newinternet-top-level-domain-names/>.
WIPO, Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service for country code top level domains (ccTLDs), viewed 21 January 2015, <http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/>.
WIPO, Filing Your UDRP Complaint with WIPO in Electronic Form Only (eUDRP), viewed 21 January 2015, <http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/complainant/>.
WIPO, Schedule of Fees under the UDRP (valid as of December 1, 2002), viewed 26 January 2015, <http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/>
WIPO, WIPO Domain Name Panelists, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, viewed 20 January 2015, <http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/panel/panelists.html>.
Woodard, EC 2009, 'The UDRP, ADR, and Arbitration: Using Proven Solutions to Address Perceived Problems with the UDRP', Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 19, issue 4.
World Intellectual Property Organization 2011, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), viewed 23 February 2015, <http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/#41>.
Copyright (c) 2015 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology