The Policy lists four non‑exclusive examples of bad faith. Each identifies a particular and distin ...

Once a case is submitted to a Panel, it is either decided or terminated. If terminated it is either b ...

Against a complainant who abuses the UDRP procedure – a recent example being Collective Media, Inc. v. CKV / COLLECTIVEMEDIA.COM ...

The mix of cases always includes the occasional complaint that is unsuited to arbitration under the Policy. While there is some elasticity in t ...

The UDRP requires that the complainant prove both registration and use in bad faith [¶4(a)(iii)]. In contrast, country code ADRs ta ...

    In the comment “Punting or Admirable Restraint” I reported on a case that the Panel held was not ripe for determination under the Policy. The issue there concerned lack of subject matter jurisdiction and brought into play ...

Two recent decisions: Gene Kelly Image Trust v. BWI Domain Manager, D2008-0342 (WIPO April 22, 2008); Birgit Rausing, AB Tetra Pak v. Darren Morgan, D2008-0212 (WIPO April 5, 2008).

    In a letter dated April 16, 2008, WIPO calls ICANN’s attention to "certain registrar-related practices ... having a potentially adverse effect on the function of the ICANN-mandated Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Po ...

    The Panel in Family Watchdog LLC v. Lester Schweiss , D2008-0183 (WIPO April 23, 2008) (Complaint dismissed) found that although the Complainant had received a certificate of registration for its trademark, t ...

     Domain names composed of generic terms or common words and expressions do not violate the Policy when they “have been registered because of their attraction as dictionary words, and not because of their value as trad ...

    UDRP complaints are resolved solely on papers without benefit of discovery and with no right of confrontation. For this reason the pleadings and evidence must be developed with as much care and be as complete as a motion for summary ...