Slashdot Mirror
Study of Domain Dispute Resolution System
yooden writes: "Milton Mueller shows in his study that the domain name dispute resolution system applied today has a tendency to reward providers who deliver name transfers (ie. WIPO). While the idea is not new, the study is." Since ICANN is meeting today, in a session with 10 totally unelected directors and 9 elected by business representatives and 0 elected by general internet users, to decide which new TLDs will be implemented and how (to split up the loot), it seems somehow appropriate to review their record of fair and impartial domain name handling over the past few years. Mueller analyzes disputes statistically and comes up with a few smoking guns.
I didn't realize that there were multiple resolution boards, and it was interesting to see that WIPO and NAF were close to 80/20 in "complainant wins" to "respondent wins" cases, whereas eResolutions was closer to 50/50, which, IMO, is a more realistic expectation of a fair system. I also like the idea suggested that the specific board that is used should be decided by the domain name registering company, as opposed to the initiator of the complaint. Yes, that might mean that WIPO and NAF would have no more cases and one or two registrars would be loaded big time, but it shows that there is a problem in consistancy across the current system.
One stat that I wish was cataloged was exactly the types of complaints vs wins and losses. For example, differing "typographical differences" from "trademark words" from "trademark variations" (e.g., "guines.com" vs "guiness.com" vs "guiness-sucks.com"). In addition, a breakdown of how the contested site was being used would be good too, if it was empty or activitely used or otherwise. I would figure the fairness issue would be highlighted strongly here.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I liked the group's listing of specific cases (near the end of the study), showing decisions that were apparently incompatible with the official resolution policy.
Rubbing ICANN's nose in badly-followed official doctrine, citing their own chapter and verse, may be effective, or it may just make things worse, though.
WIPO D2000-0054
4(a)iii - Ruling goes beyond ICANN policy, attempting to make secondary markets in generic domain names illegal if the generic term happens to be trademarked. Faced with the absence of any real bad faith, the panelists concocted a "preclusion" doctrine that holds that prior registration of a name constitutes bad faith under 4(b)ii of the policy because it prevents the trademark holder from having the name. Since domain name registrations are by definition exclusive, this could be used to justify bad faith for any name a trademark holder wants.
WIPO D2000-0479
4(a)i - The trademark involved was "Tata & Sons." The panelist stretched the definition of "confusingly similar" well beyond the breaking point.
NAF FA0093763
4(b)i, 4(a)ii - Bad faith finding based on holding that respondent registered name intending to sell it to complainant, despite absence of any evidence of an offer and despite fact that the domain was sold in 1997 to a different party with a bona fide business plan to use the name for email addresses.
WIPO D2000-0996
4(a)i - Bad faith and no rights were proved, but the panelist's finding that the domain name was "confusingly similar" to the trademark "Guinness" is insupportable.
WIPO D2000-0505
4(a)ii, 4(a)iii - Respondent used name for bona fide offering of services but panelist asserted that "some rights are better or more legitimate than others." Panelist also adopted bizarre "preclusion" concept advanced in crew.com to manufacture a bad faith finding.
WIPO D2000-0376
4(b)i - A generic term trademarked by a German company that already had the country-code version of the name. Panelist's decision seems to have been driven mainly by his irritation with the respondent's behavior. Took 4(b)i to new heights of absurdity by holding that failure to respond to an offer to buy the name for $100 proved that a higher price was demanded.
NAF FA0094388 (In post-udrp litigation)
4(a)iii - Another ruling that completely ignored the bad faith requirement of the policy in order to take away a generic domain name from a domain reseller and give it to a trademark holder
[