Domain Name Disputes and Their Resolution under UDRP Route: A Review
Domain names have a dual role in today’s internet driven market place – to map IP addresses and to act as identifier of trademark of a company. Unlike trademarks, domain names are not sufficiently protected by the laws of a country. There is no uniformity to protect domain names among the laws of various countries. In order to protect the domain names and bring uniformity, ICANN developed the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (UDRP). In this research, the various kinds of domain name abuses are identified. The application of UDRP, domain name registration process and dispute resolution service process are examined. The major domain name dispute cases resolved under UPRP by WIPO are studied. It has been found that UDRP is applicable to generic top level domains (gTLDs) and new gTLDs. It is much less relevant for country code top level domains (ccTLDs). The losing party still has the option of appealing to a court of competent jurisdiction in case of gTLDs and new gTLDs. However, this option is seldom exercised. In order to protect the domain names in a better way, there is a need to bring uniformity to domain name laws of various countries. ICANN should formulate a model domain names dispute resolution law for adoption by various countries. Also, there is a need to strengthen the UDRP.
Ahmed, S. (2010). Cybersquatting: Pits and Stops. Indian Law Institute Law Review, 1(1), 79.
Bach N.M. (2001). Understanding of Vietnamese Civil Law: The Intellectual Property Rights. Dong Nai General Publishing House, 2001.
Caruana, C. (2015). The Legal Nature of Domain Names. Retrieved from www.elsa.org.mt/
Chissick, M. and Kelman, A. (2002). Electronic Commerce: Law and Practice. 3rd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 24.
CMS (2007). Protection of Trade Marks: Online Use and Anticybersquatting, A European Perspective, A CMS IP Group Publication. Retrieved from http://docplayer.net/
Donna Karan Studio v. Raymond Donn (2001, June 27). Case No. D2001-0587. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/
Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line (2001, January 4). WIPO case D2000-1151. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/
Hitachi Ltd. v. Value Domain (2010). Case No. D2010-1433. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/
Holland B. (2005). Tempest in a Teapot or Tidal Wave? Cybersquatting Remedies Run Amok. Journal of Technology Law and Policy, 10, 307.
ICANN (1999, October 24). Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Retrieved from https://www.icann.org/
ICANN (2009, May 21). Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Retrieved from https://www.icann.org/
ICANN (2010, February 15). Non-Lawyers' Guide to the May 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement*. Retrieved from https://www.icann.org/
ICANN (2011a). New Generic top Level Domains. Retrieved from https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/2011
ICANN (2011b, June 27). Registrant Rights and Responsibilities under the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Retrieved from https://www.icann.org/
ICANN (2018). List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers. Retrieved from https://www.icann.org/
ICANN WHOIS (2018). Glossary of WHOIS Terms. Retrieved from https://www.icann.org/
IDN (2018). Internationalized Domain Names. Retrieved from https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-2012-02-25-en
INDRP (2005). INDRP Rules of Procedure. Retrieved from https://registry.in/
Katz, M., Rosston, G. and Sullivan, T. (2010, June). An Economic Framework for the Analysis of the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names. Retrieved from https://archive.icann.org/en/
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. In Seo Kim (2001, November 12). Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. In Seo Kim, Case No. D2001-1195. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/
Koščík, M. (2008). “Suck Cases” in WIPO Domain Name Decisions. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology. Retrieved from https://journals.muni.cz/
Kruger, L.G. (2014). Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues. Congressional Research Service Report. Retrieved from https://www.ipmall.info/
Levine, G.M. (2012). Inadvertent Lapse of Domain Name Registration. Retrieved from http://iplegalcorner.com/
Lipton J.D. (2005, August 6). Beyond Cybersquatting: Taking Domain Name Disputes Past Trademark Policy. Wake Forest Law Review, 40(4), 1–64.
Mercer, J.D. (2000). Cybersquatting: Blackmailing on the Information Superhighway. Journal of Science and Technology Law, 6. Boston University School of Law.
Michaelson, P. (2016, April 13). Emergency Arbitration: Fast, Effective and Economical. Just Resolutions, American Bar Association Dispute Resolution Section, March 2016. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2762715
Namestat (2018). Top 10 Biggest Selling gTLDs. Retrieved from https://namestat.org/
Ngoc, T.P. (2011). Well-known Trademark Protection. A comparative Study between the Laws of the European Union and Vietnam. Published Thesis, The Faculty of Law, Lund University.
OECD (2006, November 17). Evolution in the Management of Country Code Top-Level Domain Names (ccTLDs). DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2006)6/FINAL. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/
Philip Morris Incorporated v. r9.net (2007, November 30). Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Andrey Kulikov, Case No. D2007-1450. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/
Roesler, P. (2015). Will New Top Level Domains Matter in 2015? Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/peter-roesler/will-new-top-level-domains-matter-in-2015.html
Rustad, M. (2013). Global Internet Law, West Academic, 746-747.
SAFE Credit Union v. Mike Morgan (2006, July 18). Case No. D2006-0588. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/
Shell Trademark Management B.V. v. Domains - Best Domain (2003). Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Shell Trademark Management B.V. v. Domains - Best Domain, Case No. D2003-0066. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/
Szurdi J. and Christin N. (2017, November 1-3). Email Typo-squatting. Internet Measurement Conference, London, United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3131365.3131399
Ventsislav, P. (2012). The Prevention of Cybersquatting in Europe: Diverging Approaches and Prospects for Harmonization. MIPLC Master Thesis Series (2012/13). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2427582
WIPO (1998, December 23). WIPO Internet Domain Name Process. The Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property Issues, Interim Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/
WIPO (2010). WIPO General Assembly - Thirty-Ninth (20th Extraordinary) Session Geneva. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/
WIPO (2017, June 8). Arbitration and Mediation Center ccTLD Database. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/
WIPO ccTLDs (2018). Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service for Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs). Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/
WIPO gTLDs (2018). Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service for Generic Top-Level Domains. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/
Copyright (c) 2018 Archives of Business Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.