| Domain name conflicts affecting business are on | | | | 4. Support your position with proof. You need |
| the rise. | | | | more than bald allegations to prove rights and bad |
| Fortunately, victims of domain name abuse have | | | | faith, and you will find an increasing number of |
| an effective tool to fight cybersquatting. The | | | | cases in which complainants are called upon to |
| Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) adopted | | | | make additional submissions or lose their claim due |
| in 1999 by the International Corporation for | | | | to lack of proof. Strong submissions present |
| Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the | | | | evidence by way of exhibits and short affidavits. |
| international body responsible for domain name | | | | But don't merely shovel in piles of documents. |
| governance, has been used to address thousands | | | | Remember point 2. |
| of domain name conflicts. | | | | 5. Make good use of supporting authority. Give |
| As an ICANN UDRP Panelist with over 125 | | | | cases to support your argument and show why |
| reported decisions, I have read many submissions, | | | | the cases are relevant. Avoid merely citing cases. |
| some very good, many bad. | | | | There have been over 10,000 reported UDRP |
| Here are six recommendations for UDRP | | | | decisions. Don't assume the Panel knows the |
| submissions. | | | | result and reasoning of each case you cite. Help |
| 1. The Complaint (or Answer) should be a brief. | | | | the Panel by providing at least a parenthetical on |
| This is your only chance to argue your position. | | | | the cases you cite. |
| Treat it like a memorandum in support of a | | | | 6. Recognize the limits of the Policy. The Policy is |
| motion for preliminary injunction or summary | | | | designed to address cases of cybersquatting |
| judgment by presenting your case as an | | | | involving protectable trademarks. It is not intended |
| advocate. Mere notice pleading allowed in our | | | | for contract disputes, garden variety infringement |
| federal system is not effective for the | | | | cases, defamation claims, or personal names that |
| circumstances. | | | | are not entitled to commercial protection. Adverse |
| 2. The Pleading should be brief. Although the | | | | decisions are often the result of claims that |
| provider's limitations on length are largely ignored | | | | obviously stretch beyond the scope of the Policy. |
| and exceeded, as a Panelist I urge you to | | | | Matters outside the scope of the Policy are |
| remember that effective legal writing is brief and | | | | better directed to appropriate civil courts. |
| to the point. | | | | Since 1999, we have used the UDRP to help our |
| 3. The Pleadings should follow the Policy. Follow the | | | | clients recover hundreds of domain names from |
| elements of the Policy in stating your position. | | | | cybersquatters at a fraction of the cost of |
| Remember that the Panel must address each of | | | | ordinary civil litigation. Used properly, the UDRP is |
| these issues. Make it easy for the Panel to decide | | | | an effective tool to aid businesses protect their |
| in your favor by organizing your argument around | | | | interests in cyberspace. |
| each element of the claim or defense. | | | | |