The Freename Forum

The Canadian dispute resolution centre CIIDRC is organising a UDRP training course for decision-makers and others on 18 October 2024 under the title ‘CIIDRC 2024 UDRP Panelist Training & Workshop’.

The Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre (CIIDRC) is the last UDRP provider accredited by ICANN and has been active in domain matters since November 2019. The number of decisions since then is still low, but it is steadily increasing. There are currently just under 500 cases decided under the UDRP and the CDRP (the dispute resolution rules for domains under the Canadian ending .ca).

The training entitled ‘CIIDRC 2024 UDRP Panelist Training & Workshop’, which will take place on 18 October 2024, will be held on site in Vancouver (Canada) and online. It will provide an opportunity to increase your expertise and refine your knowledge of UDRP practice, procedure and jurisprudence. The programme includes dynamic discussions, case analyses and real-life scenarios. The speakers are the well-known domain attorneys Zak Muscovitch, Steven M. Levy and Douglas M. Isenberg. The event will start with breakfast at 08:30 (PDT). The morning session will take place from 09:00 to 12:00 (PDT) and is open to all. After a one-hour lunch break, the event will continue until 17:00 (PDT) for UDRP panellists only. Networking is then allowed from 17:00 to 18:00 (PDT).

The ‘CIIDRC 2024 UDRP Panelist Training & Workshop’ will take place on 18 October 2024 from 08:30 (PDT) at Gowlings WLG, Suite 2300, 550 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 2B5 and online. The on-site registration fee is CDN 75 (plus 5 per cent tax), which includes breakfast and lunch. Participants who only attend for half a day pay CND 50 (plus 5 per cent tax). Those attending online only will pay CND 50 (plus 5 per cent tax).

Further information and registration at:
https://arbitration.vaniac.org/ciidrc-2 ... istration/

Recently, the “CIIDRC 2024 UDRP Panelist Training & Workshop” took place in Vancouver (Canada), where domain attorney and panelist Gerald M. Levine dealt with tricky UDRP cases in his presentation “Prevailing In Contested And Close Cases”. The lecture is now available in written form and we have taken a look at it.

In his presentation, Levine sets himself the task of defining the criteria for prevailing in contested and close UDRP cases and outlining the expectations of the evidence that trademark owners need to prove their rights to disputed domains. His presentation will focus on the five percent of UDRP cases in which complainants lose. The starting point is that the UDRP was originally intended only for the relatively narrow class of cases of “abusive registrations”, which were interpreted as clear cases of cybersquatting when the UDRP was developed in 1999. However, the very first case showed that the simple rules of the UDRP, intended for “clear cut cases”, broke new ground and not only caused difficulties for experts when examining domain disputes, but also challenged them to develop the law creatively: The case of World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc. v. Michael Bosman over worldwrestlingfederation.com (WIPO Case No. D99-0001) challenged decision-maker M. Scott Donahey on the question of how the term “use” should be understood in the context of bad faith use of the domain. Does passively holding a domain constitute “use”? Over the years, the interpretation of the UDRP, which is reflected in the WIPO reviews (2005, 20011 and 2017), has evolved through a number of other early cases to which Levine refers, providing guidance not only for panelists but also for parties to dispute resolution proceedings. As a result, complainants cannot simply use the UDRP as a guide, but must also take note of the current WIPO Overview 3.0 (to which they are referred when filing a complaint) in order to conduct promising proceedings.

The success rate of the proceedings has developed significantly over the years. Levine cites the statistics of his colleague Doug Isenberg. In 2000, 14.11 percent of cases were dismissed, in 2001 even 15.75 percent. The rate is now around five percent, with only 2.47 percent of cases rejected this year. The development is based on the fact that fewer and fewer unclear and more and more clear cases of cybersquatting are being filed. The parties are following the legal development and formation of the UDRP. Trademark owners in particular have become more sensitive to the requirements placed on them. In turn, however, opponents have also developed, who do not take a position if there are no arguments against the complainants' allegations, or seek professional help to successfully counter the complaint. Levine outlines the key requirements for complainants whose failure to comply with these requirements will cause a UDRP procedure to fail, and uses a relevant decision to illustrate each case. But it can only remain with a few examples because, as Levine summarizes, there are simply too many questions to be able to give a complete list of contentious and concise UDRP cases. His conclusion is that the stronger a trademark is that is known and present on the market before the domain is registered, the more likely it is that the trademark owner will have a claim. Conversely, the more widespread the trademark and the less distinctive it is on the market, measured by its age and reputation, the more likely it is that the opponent will be able to put up a valid defense.

The very readable lecture by Gerald M. Levine shows very well that the UDRP was not simply there and everything was clear from 1999 onwards, but that over the past 25 years there has been a development in the interpretation of the standards that is still ongoing. Anyone who wants to conduct UDRP proceedings or counter a complaint cannot avoid familiarizing themselves with this development and its current status, otherwise they may end up like in the dispute over the domain eagledata.com (WIPO Case No. D2024-3666), in which the trademark was not created until 15 years after the domain was registered; a classic failed attempt by the complainant that resulted in reverse domain name hijacking.

You can find the transcript of Gerald M. Levine's presentation at the “CIIDRC 2024 UDRP Panelist Training & Workshop” on October 18, 2024 at:
https://www.internetcommerce.org/blog/p ... -m-levine/