WIPO plans to make fast-track UDRP on its own.
Managing Intellectual Property published an article today saying World Intellectual Property Organization will offer a fast-track UDRP starting next year.
No, this is not the proposed “Uniform Rapid Suspension”. And, according to the article, WIPO says it can introduce this “Fast Track” without any interaction from ICANN.
How can WIPO do this? It plans to make changes to its supplemental UDRP rules. These are the rules that each arbitration provider adds to ICANN’s rules. The rule changes will be open to a 30 day comment period, according to the article.
It’s unclear exactly what will be different in fast track, other than getting a response back from the panel faster. But WIPO says it expects up to 50% of disputes to be handled under fast track and it will cost significantly less than the regular UDRP.
What is clear is that WIPO hopes to win over a lot of customers (i.e., complainants) with this new plan thanks to venue shopping. Complainants will like the lower fees, faster turnaround, and higher likelihood of success. That means National Arbitration Forum would have to follow suit or lose more customers to WIPO.
I have a call into WIPO and several domain attorneys to understand more about WIPO’s plans, and will update accordingly.
I wonder what Wilbers means when he says that “Fast Track” will be for “obvious cases.” He also said that there will be “word limits” on pleadings, which sounds to me like proofs will not be as high as in a regular proceeding. He said that there appears to be “overlawyering” in many of the complaints. So, in other words, the trademark owner/their lawyer won’t have to work as hard and if the respondent defaults the panel no longer has to give balance to the respondent’s rights. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Sure sounds a lot like a URS-type proceeding.
@ Karen – Here’s one scenario:
1. Complainant submits abbreviated complaint
2. If domain owner doesn’t respond, complaint decided on basis of abbreviated complaint
3. If domain owner responds, complainant can submit more details.
Andrew, that sounds good in theory. It would seem that it would sure make things a lot easier for the panelist because they would be provided with very little information in the complaint to make a so-called well-reasoned decision but why should it be made so easy for the trademark holder/complainant? Seems as if the only thing easy here is WIPO racking up more bucks by attracting more clients away from the NAF.
A hard rains-a-gonna’ fall.
#1. A domain owner should not have to respond to a complaint in order to win. While some panelists do rule in favor of domain owners who do not respond (ie. many three letter cases,) most seem to rule against non-responders, even in obvious reverse domain hijacking cases.
#2 Foreign courts should not have any jurisdiction over the personal property of Americans. It is an outrage. I know of know other situation where someone in foreign country can take away an American’s property. Futhermore, the anti-American sentiment in much of the world almost insures a loss if the panelist is from certain countries. I have lost some obvious reverse hijacking case for just this reason: Americans are hated.
#3 ICANN must be dismantled. The US Government must take back control. The ICA should make the this a top priority.
ManOut, I understand some of your sentiments concerning WIPOL, but what do you think of the NAF since it’s located in the US?
I guess I have no grounds for objecting to NAF. That doesn’t mean I like them though. Ironically, it seems to me that the venue shoppers prefer NAF. NAF seems to be more slanted towards complainants than WIPO.
NAF is a tightly held company and they have slime dripping off ther finger tips. NAF has no morals whatsoever. They contiue to appoint panelists who have proven they are incompetent. Really they should be investigated for fraud.
Obviously NAF figured out they would make more money if they rule in favor of complainants at a greater rate than WIPO. This is an essential flaw in the arbitration process; Arbitration companies benefit from ruling in favor of the complainants. I am suprised this problem has not been addressed.
Respondent rights should be paramount in this new process. False claims will be plentiful. Without ICANN’s involvement and approval, what authority will these WIPO fast track rulings have to force a domain transfer?
Let’s see some well-defined standards under which someone can launch one of these.
“If a complainant requests fast track proceeding and the respondant does not respond within the allotted 20 days, then the dispute will be sent to a panel who will then issue a decision. Panellists can also choose to fast-track, even if there is a response.”
– managingip.com
“Panellists can also choose to fast-track, even if there is a response.”
This is the worrying part.
– Rob
this is crazy. WIPO had a gathering in Geneva just two weeks ago and their main agenda there was how to take more domains away from domain owners and hand them over to Complainants. Thats not all that was discussed there. WIPO had penals and penalists openly discussing how to change the laws, break rules, write their own laws, how to misinterpret UDRP guidelines and how to adjust ICANN’s policies to fit into their own corrupt WIPO agenda.
Karen,
There are actually some good ideas being considered, but the summary in that release is a train wreck. The basic idea is to have a round of notice pleading before having to submit full briefs. The types of cases that you and I defend are the “interesting” ones, but the bulk of UDRP cases are not that interesting. One side effect of there being so many default no-brainer UDRP cases is that a lot of recycled and frequently-quoted dicta come out of panelist hand-wringing over what are simple default cases of cybersquatting.
As usual, the devil is in the details, but tacking a round of notice pleading onto the front end of the UDRP is not inherently a bad idea. Calling it a “fast track UDRP” is an awful PR angle.
John,
True. I think we need to know more about what the process is before demonizing it. Not all domain name disputes are equal. Many, though obviously not all, of the cases that default SHOULD default.
What about the domain owner that does not understand UDRP, trademarks, etc.?
Maybe, they operate a small storefront website. Maybe, for their small store and the website is a small part of the business.
They can’t mentally justify hiring a IP lawyer if they could find one.
I realize there are a number of bad domain owners but I suspect the innocent and unknowledgeable domain owners will also be penalized.
John, I agree that most of these cases are “gimmes.” Keeps the big law firms in nice clothes.