UDRP (Domain Name) Arbitration: Enforceability and Relevance under Alternate Dispute Resolution Framework

Authors

  • Dev Agrawal O.P. Jindal Global University [Jindal Global Law School (JGLS)]

Keywords:

Domain names, UDRP, ICANN, cyber squatters, cyber twins, cyber parasites

Abstract

This paper examines the central role and Scope of ICANN, which is the Internet's naming system's  UDRP Policy & Rules Framework, to discussing how the jurisprudence around Administrative Procedure under this framework operates under the "Bad Faith" principle, alongside the Scope of "Domestic court intervention, to finally evaluating how the procedure is exercised. The quantity of registered domain names has increased in tandem with the growth of the Internet. Anarchy has spread across this niche area of intellectual property since the '.com' bubble burst, which has increased the frequency of domain name disputes. Trademark holders may use the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), an international policy adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers, to resolve disputes about who owns an Internet domain name (ICANN). In October of 1999, the policy was implemented, and by December of the same year, the first case had been closed. Domain name dispute resolution has come a long way since then, thanks in large part to the UDRP. However, an examination of the cases determined under the UDRP scheme reveals a different narrative. The current article includes a critical analysis of a selection of these determined instances, as well as a discussion of the UDRP's deficiencies and some proposals for its improvement.

References

Philip Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (1999), https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en.

WIPO Guide to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, WIPO. “A Scope of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy: What Are the Advantages of the UDRP Administrative Procedure”. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/.

[1954] 1 QB 45. The Court of Appeal | Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, United Kingdom. (September 26, 2021): 21-24. https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/court-of-appeal-home/.

Beveridge, Norwood P. " Corporate Puzzles: Being a true and complete explanation De facto Corporations and Corporations by Estoppel, Their Historical Development, Attempted Abolition, and Eventual Rehabilitation." 22 Okla. City U. L. 935 (1997). https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/okcu22&div=40&id=&page=.

Report of the Company Law Committee. Presented to Parliament by the President of the Board of Trade. Command of Her Majesty. London, June 1962. https://www.takeovers.gov.au/content/ Resources/other_resources/downloads/jenkins_committee_v2.pdf.

Jordan A. Arnot, “Navigating Cybersquatting Enforcement in the Expanding Internet”, 13 J. Marshall Rev. Of Intell. PROP. L. 321, 329, 330 (2014).

(1972), 42 Com.Cas 1 (Raj). Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur. 19 December 1969. https://hcraj.nic.in/cishcraj-jp/JudgementFilters/.

European Parliament. " Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market". June 8, 2000. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0031.

Holger P. Hestermeyer, “The Invalidity of ICANN’s UDRP Under National Law”, 3 MINN. INTELL. PROP. REV. 1, 44 (2002).

(2002) EWCA Civ 127. The Court of Appeal | Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, United Kingdom. September 26, 2021. https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/court-of-appeal-home/.

(1976) 355 A.2d 830. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, United States of America. https://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court.

A. Michael Froomkin, “Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN To Route Around the APA and the Constitution”, 50 DUKE L.J. 17, 135 (2000).

Alting, Carsten. “Piercing the Corporate Veil in American and German Law - Liability of Individuals and Entities: A Comparative View” Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law. The University of Tulsa. March 1995. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232683037.pdf.

Published

2022-10-28