Appeals panel disagrees with initial panel’s finding.
Some have suggested that UDRP complaints should be appealable directly with the organizations that hear the cases (rather than via lawsuits). Similar cybersquatting dispute mechanisms already provide a way to appeal, and it’s instructive to examine how these appeals are utilized.
An example is the appeals mechanism for .uk domains under the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS).
The company that appeals writes the grounds for its appeal, and the other party can submit a similar filing. Notably, they aren’t allowed to submit new evidence or annexes. In other words, the appeal is merely arguing that the first panel erred in its decision based on the record.
This month, a Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) panel overturned (pdf) a decision by a prior panel.
The case pitted The Ritz Hotel in London against Ritz Executive Cars Ltd, which provides car services using the domain ritzexecutivecars.co.uk.
The original panelist denied the case, writing, “I consider that the Complainant’s evidence is insufficient to satisfy me that the Respondent’s activities did confuse or were likely to confuse people as to the trade origin of the Respondent’s services or otherwise to cause damage to the Complainant’s business.”
The new panel disagreed with this reasoning and ordered the domain transferred.
While DRS is different from UDRP, it’s worth noting that under UDRP, this case might be denied because it’s more of a trademark dispute than a cybersquatting dispute. The domain registrant has used this domain for 15 years for its business, and it’s about to lose the domain name.
Is it not correct to say that any court action to holt a UDRP transfer, would be starting again? That process sets aside the UDRP decision and relitigates the case?
An appeal, as you say, is more narrowly focused on mistakes in an original judgement.
That’s a fair way of looking at it, although I always thing of court cases as an appeal of the UDRP. The court does not have to give any deference to the UDRP decision or what was used as evidence, and there are different guidelines for winning a UDRP vs. lawsuit.
In the case of Nominet DRS, the appeal is very narrow. It basically asks a panel to say the first panel got it wrong based on the same merits/evidence.