ICANN URDP cases - Sample Essay

If the respondent wishes to seek justice, he can further go to the appropriate court and file his case before, it and the ICANN would not interfere in this matter. The ICANN would within 10 days cancel or transfer the domain name, but in case of a lawsuit, it would wait for then 10 days for the notice and not enable the decision of the administrative tribunal. The ICANN may also not implement the decision of the administrative tribunal in case a fair agreement has reached between the complainant and the respondent regarding the use of the domain name.

The ICANN and the URDP cannot be considered as evidence in any case regarding a dispute of a domain name . There may be certain periods of time when a domain name cannot be transferred from one party to another. This may include during an administrative enquiry, ongoing court lawsuit, etc. All policies framed by the ICANN would be made known to the public at least 30 days in advance before the policies are implemented. If the policies of the ICANN are not suitable for a particular domain name, then the domain name holder can cancel his registration and reapply, when the rules are changed .

The member who belongs to the administrative panel should provide an impartial and independent decision during the process of discussion. In case certain decisions have to be made in an impartial way, then the provider should be informed of the same. The URDP procedure is an instrument meant to ensure interests of the public and the society along with certain number of private interests. The URDP procedures are primarily arranged to manage cases in which domain names have been registered in bad faith, misappropriation or for a wrongful intention, so as to destroy the good name of the trademark owner.

These cases would hence extent to situations in which the domain name are similar or confusingly similar to the trademark owner or have been registered in bad faith. The URDP would be doing case-by-case analysis and would be providing an appropriate decision based on the evidence and the facts of the case . There are several cases which can be considered as classical instances of the efficiency of the URDP in sorting out domain name disputes. One such is the CCA Industries vs. Bobby Dailey (2000).

The respondent in bad faith had registered the domain name bikinizone. com, as against CCA industries which owned the trademark BIKINI Zone. The complainant had registered his trademark in several developed countries and claimed that the domain name had to actually belong to the rightful owner. The domain name provided a link to a pornographic website and hence tarnished the image of CCA industries. In this way it was proved that the domain name was similar or confusing similar to the original trademark, and was registered in bad faith.

Besides, the Bobby Dailey did not have any legitimate interest in the domain name, and hence the URDP had transferred it to the original owner (CCA industries) . Another URDP case has been E-bay Inc vs. SGR Enterprises and Joyce Ayers (2001) before the URDP. E-bay INC owns several trademarks and domain names including ebay. com, ebay-magazine. com, and also ccTLD, containing E-bay. In 1999, SGR registered the domain names ebaylive. com and ebaystores. com.

Later E-bay requested SGR to transfer these domain names to E-bay. However, SGR failed to respond to any calls by E-bay. Through the facts of the case, it is clear that SGR registered the domain name with the intention of selling it later to the rightful trademark owner or renting it to them. The domain names were confusingly similar to the trademark and the owners did not have a legitimate interest in them. Hence, it was considered to be registered in bad faith and hence had to be transferred to the rightful owner .