UDRP arbitration forum makes surprising remarks about Implementation Recommendation Team findings.
That National Arbitration Forum would be opposed to Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URSS), a fast-track UDRP-like process, comes as no surprise. After all, it would destroy 90% of NAF’s and World Intellectual Property Organization’s domain dispute business. But NAF went above and beyond in comments to ICANN about URSS, suggesting that perhaps UDRP has gradually moved away from what it was supposed to accomplish:
The URSS is supposed to deal with “abusive uses of trademarks where there is no genuine question as to the infringing or abusive use of a mark in a domain name.†However, this is exactly the purpose of the UDRP. If the IRT reads the comments from the drafters of the UDRP, and looks at the items listed in UDRP Paragraph 4(c), in particular, it’s clear that the UDRP was not designed to deal with any situation where a Respondent might possibly have a claim to the domain name. Complainants have pushed, and Panelists have taken the opportunity, over time, to broaden the scope of the UDRP, but it started out as a mechanism only for clear cut cases of cybersquatting.
Read that again: the UDRP was not designed to deal with any situation where a Respondent might possibly have a claim to the domain name.
Just over the past week alone I’ve written about several such cases, such as Filta.com, RuggedSwitch.com, DEACOM.com, and Versa.com.
Read NAF’s entire response here (pdf).
Johnny says
Wow…..it looks like they are calling a spade a spade.
It’s nice to see this for a change and restors some of my confidence in NAF, at least the body, but not the panelists.
Johnny says
Wait a second….I did not think my thought through very well.
It’s the NAF that approves whether they will even take a case or not, so why are they letting bogus cases pass on through to the panelists for a decision, and now saying that the process is getting abused? They have the ability to control this abuse, right?
Steve M says
Hint: We’d all be wise to use their own argument against questionable filings in any “cases” we’re involved in: “…it’s clear that the UDRP was not designed to deal with any situation where a Respondent might possibly have a claim to the domain name.”
Jeffery Cockburn says
QUOTE, NAF letter May 6, 2009:
‘The Forum invites
the IRT and ICANN to contact its Internet Legal Counsel, Kristine Dorrain, who
manages the domain name dispute department for the National Arbitration Forum, should
either group wish to find out more about the Forum’s position on these or other matters,
or for thoughts from our many years of experience as a dispute resolution provider under
the UDRP.’
I for one would be interested to know about the position, thoughts and other matters. Anyone REGISTERING a domain should be interested.