Question: Should the UDRP be revised to prohibit registrars from transferring domain names to trademark owners who have used legal processes (which would be previously found by ICANN to be contrary to the UDRP) to strip a domain name from a domain name holder?

Nominee Replies

Lyman Chapin - posted on 2000-09-29 11:50:35 The right of complainants and respondents to use any applicable legal process either as an alternative to arbitration or as a recourse after arbitration is explicitly recognized by the UDRP (and would exist whether recognized by the UDRP or not), so I don't see how such a legal process could be contrary to the UDRP. ICANN is not empowered to make or interpret trademark law; its policies cannot shield domain name holders from legal remedies obtained by trademark owners through litigation. The results may offend our sense of fairness, but the UDRP cannot prevent them. Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-09-25 00:31:27 ICANN could not ignore valid court decisions. However, the registration agreement could be written such that the parties agree not to use the courts for dispute resolution. If accepted as a valid agreement, then a court would not strip a domain name from a domain name holder, but rather hold that it is the duty of ICANN to make such decisions. But ICANN would certainly need to have its own dispute resolution system for courts to respect such agreements. I currently prefer the present structure that says that the courts remain an option along side the UDRP. Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-09-24 13:17:57 I would not support this sort of change. I do not support a mandatory UDRP policy; I therefore cannot support a mandatory clause in a UDRP.