Domain Name Disputes and Their Resolution under UDRP Route: A Review

Keywords: Cybersquatting, ccTLDs, domain name disputes, DNS, gTLDs, ICANN, typo-squatting, UDRP


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.

Author Biography

Harman Preet Singh, University of Hail

Assistant Professor

Department of Management and Information Systems

College of Business Administration


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

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

Donna Karan Studio v. Raymond Donn (2001, June 27). Case No. D2001-0587. Retrieved from

Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line (2001, January 4). WIPO case D2000-1151. Retrieved from

Hitachi Ltd. v. Value Domain (2010). Case No. D2010-1433. Retrieved from

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

ICANN (2009, May 21). Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Retrieved from

ICANN (2010, February 15). Non-Lawyers' Guide to the May 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement*. Retrieved from

ICANN (2011a). New Generic top Level Domains. Retrieved from

ICANN (2011b, June 27). Registrant Rights and Responsibilities under the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Retrieved from

ICANN (2018). List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers. Retrieved from

ICANN WHOIS (2018). Glossary of WHOIS Terms. Retrieved from

IDN (2018). Internationalized Domain Names. Retrieved from

INDRP (2005). INDRP Rules of Procedure. Retrieved from

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

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

Koščík, M. (2008). “Suck Cases” in WIPO Domain Name Decisions. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology. Retrieved from

Kruger, L.G. (2014). Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues. Congressional Research Service Report. Retrieved from

Levine, G.M. (2012). Inadvertent Lapse of Domain Name Registration. Retrieved from

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

Namestat (2018). Top 10 Biggest Selling gTLDs. Retrieved from

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

Philip Morris Incorporated v. (2007, November 30). Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Andrey Kulikov, Case No. D2007-1450. Retrieved from

Roesler, P. (2015). Will New Top Level Domains Matter in 2015? Retrieved from

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

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

Szurdi J. and Christin N. (2017, November 1-3). Email Typo-squatting. Internet Measurement Conference, London, United Kingdom. Retrieved from

Ventsislav, P. (2012). The Prevention of Cybersquatting in Europe: Diverging Approaches and Prospects for Harmonization. MIPLC Master Thesis Series (2012/13). Retrieved from

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

WIPO (2010). WIPO General Assembly - Thirty-Ninth (20th Extraordinary) Session Geneva. Retrieved from

WIPO (2017, June 8). Arbitration and Mediation Center ccTLD Database. Retrieved from

WIPO ccTLDs (2018). Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service for Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs). Retrieved from

WIPO gTLDs (2018). Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service for Generic Top-Level Domains. Retrieved from

How to Cite
Singh, H. P. (2018). Domain Name Disputes and Their Resolution under UDRP Route: A Review. Archives of Business Research, 6(12).