A writer won a UDRP against domains used to question his reputation. The battle shows the inconsistencies and limitations of UDRP.
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is meant to be a quick and easy way to resolve cybersquatting disputes. However, it has inconsistencies in practice and limitations for remedies.
Consider a recent case involving a citizen journalist and domain names registered by someone with a beef against him.
Paul Mulholland first approached me with his story after filing a UDRP to recover eight domain names that include his name, such as paulmulholland.com and paulmulhollandjournalist.com.
Mulholland started investigating a porn studio that he said injured its actors and ignored consent withdrawals. He published his story on Medium, where he has also written about an apartment building with a mice infestation, economic sanctions, and types of conspiracy theorists. (His porn expose is available at that link. I am not linking directly to the story, as it contains extremely graphic descriptions, and many readers might be uncomfortable reading it.)
According to Mulholland’s arguments in the UDRP, representatives of the studio registered eight domains and created websites to attempt to discredit him after learning he was investigating the studio. They questioned whether he was truly a journalist or was really an activist, and questioned his methods. (The domains were registered under what Mulholland believes were fictitious names.)
For example, the sites alleged that he was at the January 6 riots in Washington, D.C. as a participant, not a journalist covering the rally and subsequent storming of the U.S. Capitol building. Mulholland said he attended as a journalist covering the event.
I initially told Mulholland that I thought he would lose the UDRP. It’s generally a high bar to convince a panelist that you have common law rights in your personal name.
But panelist Alan L. Limbury ruled that he did, citing a 2002 case involving author Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, Congo, et al).
Compare that to a recent case involving Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev.
Sometimes, panelists consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether the complainant has a trademark.
Additionally, I figured that the domain owner could make First Amendment arguments about the sites it created.
But the registrant didn’t respond to the UDRP, and Mulholland won the case.
The victory was short-lived, however, and it shows the limitations of UDRP. The only resolution in a UDRP is the transfer or cancellation of the subject domain names.
According to Mulholland, people associated with the studio have now registered other variations of Mulholland’s name by adding the middle initial E in the domains. They have republished the websites about Mulholland on those domains.
While Mulholland could certainly file another UDRP, it would turn into a game of whac-a-mole. There are endless variations of domains the studio could register.
That means that should Mulholland want to permanently prevent his foes from registering domains that include his name, he will have to turn to the courts.
Leave a Comment