UDRP filings at WIPO crossed the 3,000 threshold for the first time last year.
3,036 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) cases were filed with WIPO in 2016, a record.
This record is only as it pertains to disputes filed with WIPO and does not represent total UDRP filings across all UDRP hearings.
And although WIPO released a bunch of stats about the year’s filings, there was no mention of the number of reverse domain name hijacking cases.
The 3,036 cases represent a 10% increase over the prior year. New top level domain names represented 16% of cases.
In terms of the total domains at issue, .com names represented 67% of disputes. It was followed by .xyz, .net .top and .org.
Philip Morris filed the most cases (67) at WIPO last year.
If you’d like to start your Friday off with some excitement, here’s a press conference related to the data. I’d love to know who the press members were.
JohnUK says
I spoke to a department at WIPO (think was legal department) some 2 years ago and THEY said to me something along the lines “they were concerned at the number of UDRP’s” but they were not on about the numbers, they were on about the number that should NOT have been filed. I was surprised that they said that but assure you 101% they did.
JohnUK says
Eric Wilbers name rings a bell with me. He looks very “awkward” in the video clip ,does he not ?. Why this press release one wonders ?. They want even more ?.
JohnUK says
I also note that they call FILED” Cases “Cybersquatting”. Is that not a presumption of guilt even at filing stage ?. WIPO stinks and I would love to sue them for bias, since they seek to be Judge ,Jury and Executioner.
John Berryhill says
“He looks very “awkward” in the video clip ,does he not ?”
Because Mr. Gurry has his DNA….
https://www.ip-watch.org/2016/10/07/gurry-off-the-hook-investigation-ends-wipo-says/
John Berryhill says
“there was no mention of the number of reverse domain name hijacking cases”
There never is.
And, yes, RDNH findings hit a new record last year, but WIPO does not want you to know that.
Ray says
WOW WIPO actually hides comments on their youtube page if you bring up reverse domain name hijacking cases. Zero transparency with them.
Kia Foster says
See someone has just posted a comment at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDtMyW7D6rs
see how long that comment lasts .
Nick says
When I go the page it says “5” next to comments, but won’t show any comments.
Kia Foster says
I can see them myself without logging in. Strange.
Nick says
That is weird, wonder why they
let you see. I just tried from my iPad since I’m not logged in there, still can’t see anything but the number 5. You can see all 5? Are all 5 about RDNH?
Kia Foster says
NICK, Nope NOW I can only see “5” and not the messages themselves. My god WIPO are wanting to hide the truth about themselves clearly.
Kia Foster says
Correction, once I logged in to my Gmail account (which I used to make the comment) I can NOW only see my own 2 comments and NOT the other 3 that someone else posted. Clearly they do not want anyone to see the comments of others . Maybe WIPO have a Twitter account and can “ask” them there ?.
Drewbert says
Without even bothering to look at the data, my estimation of what would be found from drilling down into the stats…
1. # of .com cases is dropping. “Pure” UDRP (where there is an exact match between domain and TM) are at an all-time low.
2. increase is from the new gTLD’s, with many cases blatant infringement of well-known fanciful TM’s by registrants from non-English speaking countries hoping to cash in on TM owners. Most of the domains in question are worthless to both Registrant and TM owner.
The quickest way to increase the accuracy of UDRP cases would be to make it mandatory 3 person panels with Complainant stumping up full amount. 1 panelist chosen by Complainant from the contracted provider, 2 panelists chosen by the respondent from any provider they like.
Goodbye forum shopping and rubber stamped “no response” decisions. Myocardial infarction inside Mr Gurry’s office in 3… 2…
Drewbert says
Mandatory 3 person panels paid by Complainant. Complainant picks 1 panelist from contracted provider. Respondent picks 1 panelist from contracted provider and 1 panelist from any provider they like. If Respondent never responds, his picks are chosen by an independent entity (such as ICA – which has members that are both domainers and TM holders).
Maybe allow for amicus curiae briefs when respondent fails to respond? I think that would force complainants to improve the quality of their complaints.
Mr Gurry happy because WIPO revenue increases. Mr Gurry unhappy because UDRP decisions no longer cut&paste rubber-stamping operations.
JohnUK says
WIPO do have Twitter account at @WIPO Very interesting to see who exactly they follow and ask yourself “Why” they do follow certain parties and how that affects the appearance of Bias (as I believe WIPO are) ?. Quite interesting to flip through the people they follow. Also I stumbled across a link that may be useful for those that follow IP matters and casw law etc https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/issue/12/1
Seems to have archive for many years and upto date.