Comparative case study on alternative resolution systems for domain name disputes.
Date: 2019-02-13
Institutions: European Union Intellectual Property Office
Subjects: EU Member State, Internet address, Internet site, alternative dispute resolution, case study, comparative study, copyright, electronic commerce, intellectual property, settlement of disputes, trade mark, trade-mark law

Fall 

08 

COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON 
ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON  
ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS FOR 
DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 

ISBN 978-92-9156-261-9 doi: 10.2814/294649 TB-06-18-312-EN-N  

© European Union Intellectual Property Office, 2018 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fall 

08 

COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE 
RESOLUTION SYSTEMS FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 5 

2  GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 8 

3  METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 9 

4  OVERVIEW OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICIES ....................................................................... 11 

The UDRP ............................................................................................................................. 11 

.AU (.auDRP) ........................................................................................................................ 16 

.DK (Danish Domain Name Board) ..................................................................................... 18 

.EU (euADR) ......................................................................................................................... 20 

.IT (Modified UDRP) ............................................................................................................. 23 

.UK (Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS)) ............................................................. 25 

.CN (CNDRP) ........................................................................................................................ 28 

.JP (JP-DRP) ......................................................................................................................... 30 

.US (usDRP).......................................................................................................................... 31 

.NL (Modified UDRP) ............................................................................................................ 33 

SUMMARY STATISTICS....................................................................................................... 35 

5 

DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE CASE SCENARIOS ............................................................................... 37 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 37 

SCENARIO #1:  REGISTRATION  OF  DOMAIN  NAME 

IN  GOOD  FAITH  WITH 

SUBSEQUENT BAD FAITH USE................................................................................. 39 

SCENARIO #2: RESELLERS AND IMPORTERS ................................................................. 41 

SCENARIO #3: FORMER BUSINESS PARTNER ................................................................ 43 

SCENARIO #4: TRIBUTE SITE ............................................................................................. 44 

SCENARIO #5: CRITICISM SITE .......................................................................................... 45 

SCENARIO #6: GENERIC TERM .......................................................................................... 46 

SCENARIO #7: NON-IDENTICAL TERM .............................................................................. 48 

SCENARIO #8: PERSONAL NAME ...................................................................................... 49 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #9: CITY, COUNTY OR COUNTRY NAMES ..................................................... 50 

SCENARIO #10: OFFICIAL WEBSITES (GOVERNMENTS, INSTITUTIONS, NGOs etc.) ... 52 

SCENARIO #11:  SITES  THAT  INFRINGE  INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY  RIGHTS  SUCH 
AS  TRADE  MARKS  AND  COPYRIGHTS,  OR  THROUGH  WHICH  ITEMS  THAT 
INFRINGE  INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY  RIGHTS,  SUCH  AS  TRADE  MARKS  OR 
COPYRIGHTS, ARE OFFERED FOR SALE ................................................................ 54 

CASE SCENARIO COMPARISONS ..................................................................................... 55 

6 

SOURCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... 56 

7  GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVERSIONS ............................................... 58 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

1  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

While the internet has provided trade mark holders with previously unimaginable access to markets and 
consumers around the world, the risk of falling victim to intellectual property infringement and other types 
of fraud has also proliferated online. Trade marks are particularly susceptible to infringement on the web 
because  they  can,  amongst  other  reasons,  be  incorporated  into  a  domain  name  as  text  with  relative 
ease, which may lead to an array of abusive domain name registration and/or use practices. 

As  internet  usage  began  to  rise  in  the  late  1990s,  internet  stakeholders  and  legislators  became 
increasingly aware of these risks. However, while national courts were used to enforce trade mark rights 
as  such,  the  borderless  and multijurisdictional characteristics  of  the internet  combined  with  traditionally 
time-consuming and often costly cross-border litigation processes involved, created problems for efficient 
enforcement  of  intellectual  property  rights  against  abusive  domain  name  registrations.  It  was  for  these 
reasons that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) established the Uniform Domain Name 
Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for the resolution of  disputes arising from the registration of internet 
domain  names.  In  late  1999  the  Internet  Corporation  for  Assigned  Names  and  Numbers  (ICANN),  the 
organisation  responsible  for  coordinating  the  maintenance  and  procedures  of  the  namespaces  and 
numerical spaces of the internet, adopted WIPO’s recommendations and implemented the UDRP for all 
gTLD registrations. 

Beyond  assisting  brand  owners  in  addressing  abuse  of  their  trade  marks  online  without  the  need  for 
costly court proceedings and minimising the burden on national courts, it is also worth pointing out that 
online  dispute  resolution  such  as  the  UDRP  are  perceived  to  facilitate  global  e-commerce,  and  that 
protecting brands online not only helps mitigate consumer confusion and related harms, but also helps to 
provide a stable platform for economic growth. 

Today,  all  generic  top-level  domains 1  (gTLDs),  including  new  gTLDs 2  apply  the  UDRP  to  resolve 
disputes.  However,  while  many  country-code  top-level  domains  (ccTLDs)3 also  utilise  the  UDRP,  other 
ccTLDs have opted to either adopt a modified version of the UDRP to accommodate differences in the 
country’s legal code or to create a bespoke Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP) that may function differently 
to the UDRP. The existence of these different DRPs and the resulting varying rules and policies require 
specialised knowledge without which there may be confusion amongst intellectual property rights holders 
as to some of the unique aspects of such DRPs (thus presenting a challenge from a resources point of 
view). 

This  study,  titled  ‘Comparative  Case  Study  on  Alternative  Resolution  Systems  for  Domain  Name 
Disputes’,  has  been  commissioned  by  the  EUIPO’s  European  Observatory  on  Infringements  of 
Intellectual  Property  Rights  (the  Observatory)  to  compare  the  likely  outcomes  of  10  selected  DRPs 
(including  the  UDRP 4 )  for  11  pre-defined  case  scenarios  (disputes).  The  objective  of  the  study, 
performed  with  the  input  from  expert  panellists  in  the  respective  DRPs,  was  to  identify  key  points  of 
similarity  and  difference  in  possible  outcomes  and  to  compare  and  contrast  the  key  characteristics  of 
each DRP such as procedures, fees, durations and case statistics. 

1 Categories  of  top-level  domains  (TLDs)  maintained  by  the  Internet  Assigned  Numbers  Authority  (IANA).  The  so-
called core group of gTLDs consists of the .com, .info, .net, and .org domains. 
2 Currently amounting to some 1 200 domains (e.g. .top, .loan, .xyz, etc.). 
3 Generally used or reserved for a country, sovereign state, or dependent territory identified with a country code (e.g. 
.uk, .es, .us, etc.). 
4 The selected DRPs, in brackets [], and associated ccTLDs or gTLDs are: 1) All gTLDs and new gTLDs (e.g. .com, 
.org, .net, etc.) [UDRP]; 2) .au [auDRP]; 3).dk [Danish Domain Name Board]; 4) .eu [euADR]; 5) .it [PRSD, Modified 
UDRP]; 6) .uk [Nominet DRS]; 7) .cn [CNDRP]; 8) .jp [JP-DRP]; 9) .us [usDRP]; 10) .nl [Modified UDRP]. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

A  large  number  of  UDRP  and  ccTLD-variant  cases  were  considered  in  total.  The  study  provides  a 
summary table in a dedicated section that provides statistical data on cases that were ruled in favour of 
the  complainant,  in  favour  of  the  respondent,  terminated  before  a  decision  was  made  and  other 
outcomes  (e.g.  domain  is  cancelled,  fee  not  paid,  invalid  complaint).  Furthermore,  a  large  amount  of 
data,  provided  by  expert  panellists  in  all  of  the  DRPs,  were  collected  and  analysed  for  the  case 
comparisons. Each case scenario has its own dedicated section within this report. 

The  study  has  concluded  that  with  the  exception  of  the  Danish  Domain  Complaints  Board  (.dk),  the 
DRPs assessed are substantially similar to the UDRP5. In fact, some of the DRPs analysed are identical 
to the UDRP except for a few alterations that are either to align the process to the country’s underlying 
legal code or to include an initial mandatory mediation phase6. JP-DRP (.jp), for example, expands the 
basis for initiating a domain dispute from ‘trademarks and service marks’ to ‘trademark or other indication 
[sic]’ to accommodate the narrow definition of trade marks defined under the Japanese Trademark Act. 

Therefore, with the exception of the Danish Domain Complaints Board (.dk), the likely outcomes for the 
eleven theoretical case scenarios were substantially similar across the different DRPs assessed. Despite 
this, there are a number of key points of divergence between the DRPs: 

 

 

 

 

Nominet  (.uk),  .nl  and  .it,  all  modified  versions  of  the  UDRP,  allow  for  a  mediation  stage,  which 
provides the opportunity for both the complainant and respondent to resolve a dispute before the 
panel stage, if both parties are willing. This mediation stage accounts for a reasonable portion of 
resolved disputes before a case formally commences. For .uk disputes for example, nearly 10 % of 
total complaints are resolved this way. 

There is some divergence in the requirements for a decision against a respondent7. For instance, 
the  UDRP  requires  the  complainant  to  prove  bad  faith  at  the  time  of  registration  and  as  to  use 
(typically  at  the  time  of  the  complaint).  In  practice  this  would  mean  that  a  domain  holder  who 
registers a domain in good faith, but subsequently utilises the domain in bad faith will normally still 
prevail  against  a  complainant.  However,  most  other  DRPs  state  that  it  is  sufficient  to  prove  that 
either registration or use of the domain name is in bad faith. 

Furthermore, the three cumulative requirements of the UDRP that a complainant must prove for a 
decision  against  a  respondent  [i)  that  the  domain  name  is  identical  or  confusingly  similar  to  the 
trade mark or service mark, and ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain 
name and iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith)] are not present 
in euADR (.eu). Instead the euADR states that a complainant must demonstrate why the disputed 
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark or relevant identifier and, either: 
why  the  disputed  domain  name  has  been  registered  by  its  holder  without  rights  or  legitimate 
interests  or  why  the  disputed  domain  name  should  be  considered  as  having  been  registered  or 
being used in bad faith. 

As  regards  the  rights  covered,  while  several  DRPs,  including  the  UDRP,  tend  to  consider  the 
protection of trade marks and service marks, other DRPs, including euADR and .nl, both modified 
versions of the UDRP, consider rights to extend to other areas such as geographical indications or 

5 The Danish Domain Complaints Board policy draws from three lines in the Danish Act on Internet Domains, which 
states that ‘registrants may not register and use internet domain names in violation of good domain name practice’ 
and  ‘registrants  may  not  register  and  maintain  registrations  of  internet  domain  names  solely  for  resale  or  rental 
purposes’. No other guidance is provided. 
6 Refer to .nl Modified UDRP and .it Modified UDRP. 
7  The  UDRP  employs  a  three-stage  test  that  a  complainant  must  prove  when  making  a  complaint  against  a 
respondent:  i)  domain  name  is  identical  or  confusingly  similar  to  trade  mark,  ii)  respondent  has  no  rights  or 
legitimate  interests  in  respect  of  the  domain  name  and  iii)  the  domain  name  has  been  registered  and/or  is  being 
used in bad faith. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

designations  of  origin  as  well  as  unregistered  trade  marks,  trade  names,  business  identifiers, 
company names, surnames, and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works. 

These  sometimes  subtle  divergences  may  impact  both  the  overall  procedure  for  the  respondent  and 
complainant and the approach that panellists take when deciding on a case. Indeed, in some instances 
they  can  lead  to  different  case  outcomes,  e.g.  when  it  comes  to  standing  to  file  a  complaint,  or  the 
differences in cumulative requirements to rule against a respondent. 

The results of this study should provide more clarity for IP rights holders, domain name stakeholders and 
policy makers. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

2  GENERAL BACKGROUND 

Domain names are one of the most common business identifiers for companies and trade mark holders. 
It is therefore desirable for rights holders to have a domain name that closely approximates their trade 
mark or trademarked products in order to exercise their trade mark rights8. 

A company or rights holder wishing to acquire a domain name must apply through a domain accredited 
registrar.  For  gTLDs,  only  ICANN  accredited  registrars9 can  register  domain  names  with  the  domain 
name registry (e.g. Verisign for .com, Public Interest Registry for .org, etc.). For ccTLDs, registrars are 
accredited by the domain registries themselves (e.g. the registry for .uk is Nominet, for .nl it is the SIDN, 
for  .dk  it  is DK Hostmaster).  If  a  rights  holder  finds  that  the  domain  name  corresponding  to  their  trade 
mark  has  been  registered  illegitimately  by  someone  else,  they  can  initiate  a  DRP  via  an  accredited 
Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP). At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that other 
businesses active in other areas of goods or services and/or in other jurisdictions may have a legitimate 
claim  to  such  domain  name.  The  basic  structural  features  of  a  DRP  are  provided  in  the  Figure  below, 
with arrows showing the relationships between the various entities10. 

A: Accreditation of registrars by registry (or ICANN, in the case of gTLDs) 
B: Adoption of DRP (either UDRP, Modified UDRP or bespoke DRP) by registry 
C: In the case of ccTLDs: accreditation of DRSPs by registry 
D: Application of DRP on registrants by registrars (through registry contract terms with registrar) 
E: Filing of complaint and selection of DRSP by trade mark owners (now referred to as ‘complainants’) 
F: Appointment of panel(s) to cases by DRSPs 
G: Application of DRP to cases by panels 
H: Imposition of panels’ decisions on registrars 
I: Execution of DRP remedies against respondents by registrars via registry (if applicable). 

8 For instance, a 2016 report for the EUIPO on ‘Intellectual Property, SME Scoreboard’ found that internet domain 
names  were  one  of  the  top three measures  that  SMEs  report as  being important  for a  company’s  ability  to  derive 
competitive advantage from their innovative activities. Furthermore, the report found that internet domain names are 
the single most important kind of protection measure for all SMEs regardless of size. 
9 For gTLDs, there are 2 466 ICANN-accredited registrars. 
10 Graphic has been modified from Online Dispute Resolution — The Phenomenon of the UDRP, Melbourne Legal 
Studies Research Paper No 681, Andrew Christie, p. 11. 

8 

RegistryDispute Resolution Service Providers PanelsApplication of DRPRegistrarsRegistrantsRespondentsTrademark OwnerABCDIEFGH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

3  METHODOLOGY 

The DRPs selected for the analysis and comparison in this study, in brackets [], and associated ccTLDs 
or gTLDs are as follows11: 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 

all legacy gTLDs and new gTLDs (e.g. .com, .org, .net, etc.) [UDRP] 
.au [auDRP] (Modified UDRP) 
.dk [Danish Domain Name Board] 
.eu [euADR] (Modified UDRP) 
.it [PRSD] (Modified UDRP) 
.uk [Nominet DRS] (Modified UDRP) 
.cn [CNDRP] (Modified UDRP) 
.jp [JP-DRP] 
.us [usDRP] (Modified UDRP) 
.nl (Modified UDRP). 

The table below provides a description of the case scenarios under review. 

# 

1 

2 

3 

SCENARIO 

EXAMPLE 

Registration of domain name in good faith with 
subsequent bad faith use. 

An initial fan page that over time comes to sell 
competing products. 

Circumstances under which resellers/importers 
are allowed to use a third-party domain. 

Consideration of former business partner’s 
interests. 

4 

Treatment of tribute sites. 

5 

Treatment of criticism sites. 

6 

Treatment of possibly generic terms. 

7 

Treatment of non-identical terms (i.e. slight 
variations of terms such as misspellings, use of 
plural, differing use of punctuation, etc., and 
the extent necessary for such variations to be 
considered non-infringing). 

8 

Treatment of personal names. 

9 

Treatment of city, county or country names. 

An importer of a product registers a ccTLD domain 
with the same name as the manufacturer’s global 
website. 

A party registers a domain incorporating a former 
partner’s name without the consent of that former 
partner. 

A fan site domain that is not owned or operated by 
the person the site refers to. 

An organisation registers a website that is used to 
criticise a competing brand. 

A domain is registered using a term that is generic 
in some countries, but not in others. 

A domain that is registered that contains an 
intentional minor misspelling of a well-known brand 
name as a means of selling competing products. 

A domain name that relates to the owner’s 
surname, that coincides with a trade mark. 

A domain name that includes country abbreviations 
combined with new gTLDs such as ‘de.travel’ 
instead of ‘travel.de’. 

11 .cx  had  initially  been  shortlisted  at  the  beginning  of  the  project  but  was  dropped  for  lack  of  data  and  primary 
sources. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

10 

11 

Treatment of official websites (governments, 
Institutions, NGO’s, etc.). 

Treatment of websites that infringe intellectual 
property rights (such as trade marks and 
copyrights), or through which items that 
infringe intellectual property rights, such as 
trade marks or copyrights, are offered for sale. 

A domain name that incorporates the use of the 
name of a governmental organisation, where there 
is no official link to that organisation. 

A domain that does not infringe any trade mark or 
copyrights in itself, but items offered for sale 
through the website do. 

The  study  consulted  both  primary  and  secondary  sources  to  develop  the  findings.  Firstly,  expert 
panellists  drawn  from  the  public  lists  of  DRPs  were  engaged  to  discern  decision  criteria  for  each  case 
scenario.  Data  on  each  scenario  was  collected  by  means  of  a  questionnaire,  which  experts  filled  out 
according to the DRP of their expertise. Further telephone discussions and email correspondence was 
also conducted where necessary for clarification. For each of the case scenarios, experts provided their 
input on the following areas. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Approach employed by the panel. 
Key factors to consider. 
Under what conditions would the DRP decide in favour of the domain holder? 
Under what conditions would the DRP decide against the domain holder? 
What proportion of similar applicable cases has been decided in favour of the domain holder? 
What are the landmark cases that define precedent in such cases? 
Under what circumstances would a case of this nature be referred to the court system? 
Sources and links. 

In addition to the case scenarios, the study also took a thorough look at each DRP and identified points 
of  similarity  and  difference.  The  following  areas  were  covered  through  a  combination  of  primary  and 
secondary research for the abovementioned dispute resolution policies: 

 
 

 

registration requirements for domain names; 
description of the systems, including dispute procedure, costs, presentation of evidence, fast track, 
etc.; 
statistics, such as number of cases and lengths of proceedings. 

Case statistics, with the exception of two DRSPs for the UDRP, were publicly accessible either via the 
DRPs themselves or the domain registries. Case decisions converged on four decision categories, which 
are presented in this report for each DRP: Accepted/Transfer, Denied, Termination and Other. Decisions 
that  are  categorised  as  Accepted/Transfer  denote  cases  ruled  in  favour  of  the  complainant  and  as  a 
result the domain name was transferred to the complainant. Cases that are denoted as Denied are where 
the  respondent  prevailed.  Cases  that  were  Terminated  could  be  either  a  case  that  was  resolved  via 
facilitated  mediation  or  settlement  between  the  parties  themselves  before  the  panel  could  make  a 
decision,  or  that  the  case  was  terminated  by  the  complainant  for  another  reason.  The  Other  category 
refers to cases that did not reach a decision for other reasons, mostly administrative errors on behalf of 
the  complainant  (e.g.  not  paying  the  fee)  or  other  invalid  submission  material.  These  data  sets,  along 
with the total number of cases filed for each DRP, were recorded for the time period 2015-2017 and can 
be found in the following chapter. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

4  OVERVIEW OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICIES 

The UDRP 

BACKGROUND 

The  UDRP  was  developed  by  WIPO  and  adopted  by  ICANN  in  late  1999  to  provide  a  solution  to  the 
challenges  that  traditional  offline  court-based  legal  processes  faced  in  dealing  with  unprecedented 
volumes of trade mark-related domain name abuse12. Today, the UDRP is utilised for all gTLD13 disputes 
and a large number of ccTLDs. The UDRP also applies to new gTLDs, which currently amount to some 
1 200 domains14. 

Domain names in gTLDs may be registered with one of over 2 000 ICANN-accredited registrars, or their 
resellers15.  A  domain  name  registrant  enters  into  an  agreement  with  the  registrar,  which,  further  to 
establishing the UDRP as the agreed procedure for domain dispute resolutions, states that the registrant 
agrees not to engage in or facilitate illegal activity via the domain name. Registrars, for their part, must at 
least establish and maintain a dedicated abuse point of contact, including a dedicated email address and 
telephone number that is monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to receive reports of illegal activity16. 

KEY FACTS 

Governing Rules: Rules for the UDRP17. 
Administrative Panel: A panel is appointed by the DRSP to rule on a domain name dispute. Panellists 
are  sourced  from  the  provider’s  publicly  available  list  of  panellists  and  are  experienced  practitioners  in 
the  areas  of  intellectual  property  law,  electronic  commerce  and  the  internet18.  Each  provider  publishes 
the list of panellists and their qualifications. 

DRSPs: Available DRSPs are the Arab Centre for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR), the Asian 
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC)  — Arbitration 
Center  for  Internet  Disputes,  the  National  Arbitration  Forum  (NAF)  and  the  WIPO  Arbitration  and 
Mediation Center. A complainant can select any one of these DRSPs to resolve their dispute, regardless 
of location or geography. 

Complaint  Filing  Requirements:  Any  person  or  entity  may  initiate  an  administrative  proceeding  by 
submitting a complaint to any of the providers listed above for all gTLDs. The complaint must specify the 
trade  mark(s)  on  which  the  complaint  is  based  and  describe  in  particular  (1)  the  manner  in  which  the 

12 Online Dispute Resolution — The Phenomenon of the UDRP, Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No 681, 
Andrew Christie. 
13 The main gTLDs are .com, .org, .net, .int, .edu and .gov 
14 https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/ (last visited November 2018); 
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/program/materials (last visited November, 2018); 
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics (last visited November 2018). 
15 https://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html (last visited November 2018). 
16 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en (last visited November 2018). 
17 The UDRP Rules can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en 
18 It is the complainant who initially elects to have the dispute decided by either a single-member or a three-member 
panel. In the event complainant elects a three-member panel, the complainant must provide the names and contact 
details  of  three  candidates  to  serve  as  one  of  the  panellists  (drawn  from  any  ICANN-approved  provider’s  list  of 
panellists).  If  the  complainant  elects  a  single-member  panel,  the  respondent  can  then  elect  to  have  the  dispute 
decided by a three-member panel. If either complainant or respondent elects a three-member panel, the respondent 
must  provide  the  names  and  contact  details  of  three  candidates  to  serve  as  one  of  the  panellists.  Most  UDRP 
proceedings are conducted with one-member panels (95 %). 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

domain  name(s)  is/are  identical  or  confusingly  similar  to  a  trade  mark  or  service  mark  in  which  the 
complainant has rights; (2) why the respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate 
interests in  respect  of  the  domain  name(s);  and  (3)  why  the  domain  name(s)  should  be  considered as 
having been registered and being used in bad faith. 

Timeframe:  A  domain  name  dispute  filed  through  the  UDRP  usually  takes  around  60 days,  with  a 
maximum timeframe of 75 days19. 

Possibilities  to  Appeal: the UDRP contains no internal appeal mechanism. Parties who wish to do so 
may,  however,  pursue  the  matter  in  court.  However,  this  option  is  only  available  within  the  UDRP 
framework if official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) 
is  provided  within  10  business  days  of  the  decision  being  communicated  to  the  parties.  If  this 
documentation  is  not  provided  then  the  decision  will  be  carried  out.  If  the  registrar  receives  the 
documentation within the 10 business day period, they will not implement the panel’s decision, and they 
will take no further action, until they receive either (i) satisfactory evidence that a resolution between the 
parties has been reached; (ii) satisfactory evidence that the lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn; or 
(iii)  a  copy  of  an order from such  court  dismissing  the  lawsuit.  Nothing,  however,  prevents  either  party 
from seeking judicial redress outside the UDRP context. 

DISPUTE PROCEDURE 

There are five basic stages of a UDRP administrative procedure: 

 

 
 

 
 

filing  of  a  complaint  with  an  ICANN-accredited  dispute  resolution  service  provider  chosen  by  the 
complainant, such as the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center; 
filing of a response (or a default) by the person or entity against whom the complaint was made; 
appointment by the chosen dispute resolution service provider of an administrative panel of one or 
three persons who will decide the dispute; 
issuance of the administrative panel’s decision and the notification of all relevant parties; and 
submission  by  registrar  to  registry  for  the  imposition  of  the  panel’s  decision  should  there  be  a 
decision that the domain name(s) in question be cancelled or transferred. 

The core underpinnings of the UDRP (paragraph 420) states that the complainant must prove that each of 
the following three elements are present in the complaint being filed: 

(i) 

(ii) 
(iii) 

the  domain  name is  identical  or  confusingly  similar  to  a  trade  mark  or  service mark  in  which  the 
complainant has rights; and 
the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and 
the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 

The UDRP also establishes guidance on when the requirements for ii) and iii) above are satisfied, such 
as21: 

 

circumstances  indicating  that  the  respondent  has  registered  the  domain  name  primarily  for  the 
purpose  of  selling,  renting,  or  otherwise  transferring  the  domain  name  registration  to  the 
complainant  who  is  the  owner  of  the  trade  mark  or  service  mark  or  to  a  competitor  of  that 

19 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/#b1 (last visited November 2018). 
20 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en#4b (last visited November 2018). 
21 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en#4b (last visited November 2018). 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 

 

 

complainant, for a value in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain 
name; or 

the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or 
service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name; or 

the  domain  name  was  registered  primarily  for  the  purpose  of  disrupting  the  business  of  a 
competitor; or 

by  using  the domain  name,  the  respondent  has  intentionally  attempted  to  attract,  for  commercial 
gain,  internet  users  by  creating  a  likelihood  of  confusion  with  the  complainant’s  mark  as  to  the 
source,  sponsorship,  affiliation,  or  endorsement  of  the  respondent’s  website  or  location  or  of  a 
product or service on their website or location. 

Paragraph 4c of the UDRP also establishes that a respondent can demonstrate its rights and legitimate 
interest in a particular domain name by proving ‘use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain 
name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services’, or that the individual or organisation 
has been commonly known by the domain name, even if no trade mark or service mark rights have been 
acquired,  or  ‘if  the  respondent  is  making  a  legitimate  non-commercial  or  fair  use  of  the  domain  name, 
without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service 
mark at issue’22. Moreover, noting in particular the global nature of the internet, the jurisdiction(s) where 
the trade mark is valid is not considered relevant to panel assessment23. 

Paragraph 10 of the UDRP — General Powers of the Panel — lays out the powers of the panellists in a 
UDRP dispute as follows24: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

‘The panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate 
in accordance with the Policy and these Rules. 

In all cases, the panel shall ensure that the parties are treated with equality and that each party is 
given a fair opportunity to present its case. 

The panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. It may, 
at the request of a Party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time fixed 
by these rules or by the panel. 

(d)  The panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence. 

(e)  A  panel  shall  decide  a  request  by  a  party  to  consolidate  multiple  domain  name  disputes  in 

accordance with the Policy and these Rules.’ 

A process flow diagram is provided on the following page to provide a visual illustration of a typical UDRP 
process flow as executed by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. 

22 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en#4b (last visited November 2018). 
23 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item1 (last visited November 2018). 
24 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en (last visited November 2018). 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure Process Flow25 

FEES 26 

For WIPO cases where one panellist is required, the typical fees are USD 1 500 (EUR 1 293), which is 
split USD 1 000 (EUR 862) for the panellist and USD 500 (EUR 431) for WIPO as an administrative fee27. 
For  larger  cases  involving  more  than  10  domain  names,  the  fees  increase  on  a  sliding  scale.  Where 
three  panellists  have  been  requested,  the  typical  fees  are  USD 4 000  (EUR 3 448),  which  is  split 
between presiding panellist USD 1 500 (EUR 1 293), two co-panellists USD 750 (EUR 646) and WIPO’s 
administrative fee USD 1 000 (EUR 862). 

The ACDR fee structure is virtually identical to WIPO. 

ADNDRC fees for one panellist are USD 1 300 (EUR 1 120), which is split USD 700 (EUR 603) for the 
panellist  and  USD 600  (EUR 517)  for  ADNDRC  as  an  administrative  fee.  Again,  these  fees  could  be 
higher if more than 10 domain names are included in the complaint28. Where three panellists have been 
requested,  the  fees  are  USD 2 800  (EUR 2 413),  which  is  split  between  presiding  panellist  USD 1 000 
(EUR 862), two co-panellists USD 600 (EUR 517) and an ADNDRC fee ISD 600 (EUR 517)These fees 
could be higher if more than 10 domain names are included in the complaint29. 

25 Adapted from http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/UDRPflowchart.pdf (last visited November 2018). 
26 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/ (last visited November 2018). 
27 Cost ranges are triggered by the number of domain names included in the complaint. Most cases only have 1-2 
domains  included.  The WIPO  fees  and  breakdowns can  be  viewed  here  http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/ 
(last visited November 2018). 
28 This appears to be a rare incurrence for all domain disputes. Complaints are normally for 1 or 2 domain names. 
29 https://www.adndrc.org/mtsc/bjen/udrp1.php?st=3#fee (last visited November 2018). 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The CAC30 charges between EUR 800 and EUR 1 100 for a single panellist for 1 to 10 disputed domains. 
Fees  for  three  panellists  range  between  EUR 2 600  and  EUR 3 200.  However,  the  CAC  also  has 
separate additional fees of EUR 300 to EUR 400 for each complaint once the respondent has responded 
to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint. 

The NAF charges between EUR 1 120 and EUR 1 550 for a single panellist for 1 to 10 disputed domains. 
Fees for three panellists range between EUR 2 240 and EUR 3 10031. 

Generally,  in  the  event  of  the  withdrawal  of  a  complaint  or  termination  of  an  administrative  proceeding 
prior to the appointment of a panel, the DRSP will withhold a processing or administrative fee32 while the 
remainder is returned to the respective parties. 

STATISTICS 

WIPO processed over 3 000 domain name disputes in 2017 and 93 % of all decided cases were decided 
in  favour  of  the  complainant  in  that  year33.  The  CAC  processed  201  cases  in  2017,  with  186  case 
decisions  (92 %)being  accepted in favour of  the  complainant34.  The NAF  on the  other  hand  processed 
1 390 cases in 2017 with a similar acceptance for complainants (93 %). Statistics data for the ACDR and 
the ADNDRC was unavailable at the time of writing the report35. 

2015 

2016 

2017 

DISPUTE 
RESOLUTION 
PROVIDER 
(GTLDS 
ONLY) 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

ACDR 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A 

N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 

ADNDRC 

N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 

CAC 

NAF 

96 

82 

11 

1 267  1 138  123 

0 

2 

3 

97 

88 

9 

4 

1 181  1 075  100 

0 

2 

0 

201 

186 

14 

N/A 

4 

1 390  1 294  88 

5 

1 

3 

WIPO 

2 754  1 943  183 

575 

53  3 036  2 253  185 

541 

57  3 074  2 331  167 

535 

41 

30 http://udrp.adr.eu/arbitration_platform/fees.php (last visited November 2018). 
31 http://www.adrforum.com/UDRPFees (last visited November 2018). 
32 Amounts or percentages are not mentioned by the DRSPs themselves but it could be as high as 50 % of the total 
fees. 
33 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/ (last visited July 2018). 
34 Please note that the total figure does not include cases that are terminated before a panel has been assembled. 
35 For this study, several attempts were made to contact both organisations. The ADNDRC has a statistics section 
on their website but the data is either incomplete or inaccessible. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

NOTES36 

 

The NAF data is from the decision date, whereas the CAC and WIPO data is from filing date of the 
complaint itself. This could lead to minor discrepancies in annual data because a complaint filed in 
December 2016 would likely appear under the 2016 column for WIPO and the CAC but will likely 
appear in the 2017 for the NAF because the decision would have been made in that year. 

.AU (.auDRP) 

BACKGROUND 

.AU  domain  names  are  managed  by  au  Domain  Administration  Ltd  (auDA).  .AU  domain  names  are 
restricted to Australian registrants (either as companies operating in the country or citizens or residents, 
in the case of id.au)37. There are over 3 million .au registrations with roughly 40 certified registrars for the 
.au domain38. Within the .au domain, there are several different second-level domains (2LDs), each with 
their own eligibility and allocation rules. It is not possible to register domain names directly under .au39. 
Generally, 2LDs are utilised for specific purposes, as described below: 

 

 

 

 
 

asn.au:  for  incorporated  associations,  political  parties,  trade  unions,  sporting  and  special  interest 
clubs; 
com.au: for commercial entities, such as companies (with ACN as registered through ASIC), and 
businesses (registered with state governments); 
net.au:  for  commercial  entities,  such  as  companies  (with  ACN  as  registered  through  ASIC),  and 
businesses (registered with state governments); 
id.au: for individuals who are Australian citizens or residents; 
org.au: for charities and non-profit organisations. 

KEY FACTS 

Governing Rules: auDRP Rules40 administered by auDA and based on the UDRP. 

Administrative Panel: Same as UDRP. Each auDRP provider is wholly responsible for the appointment 
of its listed panellists. 

DRSP: WIPO and the Resolution Institute (Australian arbitration and dispute resolution services firm). 

Complaint  Filing  Requirements: Same as UDRP, although complainants must meet the eligibility  and 
allocation rules for .AU described above. 

36 As set out in the Chapter on Methodology, the categories are divided into Accepted/Transfer, Denied, Termination 
and Other. Decisions that are categorised as Accepted/Transfer denote cases ruled in favour of the complainant and 
as a result the domain name was transferred to the complainant. Cases that are denoted as Denied are where the 
respondent prevailed. Cases that were Terminated could be either a case that was resolved via facilitated mediation 
or settled between the parties themselves before the panel could make a decision, or that the case was terminated 
by  the  complainant  for another reason.  The  Other category  refers  to  cases  that  did  not  reach  a  decision for other 
reasons,  mostly  administrative  errors  on  behalf  of  the  complainant  (e.g.  not  paying  the  fee)  or  other  invalid 
submission material. 
37 https://www.auda.org.au/policies/index-of-published-policies/2012/2012-05/ (last visited November 2018). 
38 https://www.auda.org.au/industry-information/registrars/ (last visited November 2018). 
39 https://www.auda.org.au/policies/index-of-published-policies/2012/2012-04/ (last visited November 2018). 
40 https://www.auda.org.au/assets/pdf/auda-2016-01.pdf (last visited November 2018). 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Timeframe: The average auDRP proceeding takes 45 days41. 

Possibilities  to  Appeal:  Same  as  UDRP.  Panel  decisions  under  auDRP  are  binding  on  both  parties. 
There is no appeal mechanism. Filing court proceedings are subject to the same time limits as UDRP. 

DISPUTE PROCEDURE 

The  auDRP  is  modelled  on  UDRP  and  is  virtually  identical  with  the  exception  of  the  following  two 
differences42: 

 

 

rights covered — the auDRP applies to domain names that are identical or confusingly similar, not 
only  to  a  trade  mark  or  service  mark,  but  to  any  ‘name’  in  which  the  complainant  has  rights, 
including the complainant’s company, business or other legal or trading name, as registered with 
the relevant Australian government authority; or the complainant’s personal name; 

bad  faith  —  it  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  either  registration  or  use  of  the  domain  name  by  the 
registrant is in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the complainant to prove both. 

In very broad terms, the steps involved in an auDRP do not differ from the UDRP, and are presented as 
follows: 

1. 
2. 

3. 
4. 
5. 

6. 
7. 

complaint is filed with an approved DRSP; 
DRSP  reviews  the  complaint  to  ensure  that  it  complies  with  the  policy,  and  then  forwards  the 
complaint to the respondent; 
the respondent files a response (within 20 days); 
DRSP appoints the panel (which can consist of either one or three panellists); 
the panel reviews the complaint and the response, and forwards its decision to the DRSP (usually 
within 14 days); 
DRSP delivers the full text of the decision to each party, and publishes the decision on the website; 
registrar submits decision to registry to impose decision (if relevant). 

FEES 

WIPO and Resolution Institutes’ fees are very similar. The filing fee to commence a proceeding under the 
auDRP  is AUD 2 000  (EUR 1 273)  in  the  case  of a  one-member  panel  and  AUD 4 500  (EUR 2 866) in 
the  case  of  a  three-member  panel43.  The  fee  will  be  higher  if more  than  five  domain  names  are  being 
disputed, however, this is also a rare occurrence. 

STATISTICS 

In  2017,  a  total  of  55  matters  were  lodged  between  WIPO  and  the  Resolution  Institute.  Out  of  these 
cases,  38  were  found  in  favour  of  the  complainant,  6  in  favour  of  the  respondent,  11  withdrawn  or 
terminated before decision44. 

41 https://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-audrp-2007.pdf (last visited November 2018). 
42 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/au/index.html (last visited November 2018). 
43 http://epiphany.law/articles/domain-names/audrp-faqs (accessed November 2018). 
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/cctlds/au/index.html (accessed November 2018). 
44 https://www.auda.org.au/assets/Annual-Reports/2016-17-auDA-Annual-Report.pdf 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

2015 

2016 

2017 

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

0 

0 

8 

5 

52 

33 

1 

4 

1 

14 

0 

1 

13 

42 

10 

28 

2 

4 

1 

10 

0 

0 

DRSP 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

RESOLUTION 
INSTITUTE 

WIPO 

12 

39 

3 

24 

6 

6 

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

3 

9 

.DK (Danish Domain Name Board) 

BACKGROUND 

.DK domain names are managed by DK Hostmaster (owned by Dansk Internet Forum, DIFO)45. There 
are  1.3 million  registered  .dk  domain  names  and  there  are  over  200  registrars  licensed  by  DK 
Hostmaster  to  resell  .dk  domain  names 46 .  While  the  eligibility  criteria  for  registrants  is  rather 
straightforward,  DK  Hostmaster  reserves  the  right  to  suspend  a  domain  name  if  illegal  activity  is 
suspected47. 

KEY FACTS 

Governing  Rules: Regulations of the Complaints Board for Domain Names and Rules of Procedure48. 
An important distinction between the .dk dispute resolution system and the UDRP and other DRPs is that 
.dk  complainants  can  invoke  Danish  law  in  general  as  legal  grounds, meaning  that  complaints  are  not 
restricted to bad faith registration and/or use. 

Administrative Panel: The Danish Complaints Board for Domain Names (Complaints Board) handles all 
domain name disputes. The Complaints Board comprises one chairperson and one vice-chairperson who 
must  be  judges,  two  members  with  theoretical  and  practical  expertise  in  law  as  well  as  two  members 
representing consumer and commercial interests, respectively. Substitutes for each of the two members 
with expertise in law and for the consumer and commercial representatives have also been appointed49. 

DRSP: The Danish Complaints Board for Domain Names. 

and http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/domain.jsp (last visited November 2018). 
45 DIFO  has  overall  responsibility  for  the  top-level  domain  ‘.dk’.  The  Danish  Ministry  of  Industry,  Business  and 
Financial  Affairs  has  appointed  DIFO  as  the  association  responsible  for  administering  the  .dk  domain.  DIFO  was 
founded  on  1 July  1999  with  the  sole  purpose  of  assuming  administration  of  the  top-level  domain  ‘.dk’.  DK 
Hostmaster A/S is DIFO’s subsidiary company, and administers all .dk domain names and ensures the operation of 
the Danish internet infrastructure. DIFO owns DK Hostmaster and defines the framework for its activities. 
46 https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/en/domain-name-administration (last visited November 2018). 
47 https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/en/terms (last visited November 2018). 
48

 https://www.domaeneklager.dk/sites/default/files/2017-08/Regulations%202017.pdf 
https://www.domaeneklager.dk/sites/default/files/2017-08/RULES%20OF%20PROCEDURE%202017%20-%20ENG.pdf 
(last visited November 2018). 
49 For instance, the current Chairperson is Kaspar Linkis, High Court Judge and Vice-Chairperson is Jacob Waage, 
Judge, please refer to https://www.domaeneklager.dk/en/node/406 (last visited November 2018). 

and 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                           
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Complaint  Filing  Requirements:  Any  person  or  entity  may  file  a  complaint.  The  chairperson  of  the 
Complaints Board decides whether the complainant has sufficient interest. 

Timeframe: 60-70 days 

Possibilities  to  Appeal:  No  appeal  mechanism.  Cases  can  only  be  reopened  if  special  reasons  so 
warrant at the Complaints Board’s discretion including, for instance, lawful absence of a party who has 
not expressed his or her opinion in the case, or new information which — had it been available during the 
hearing of the case by the Complaints Board — would presumably have resulted in a different outcome 
of the case50. Moreover, the Complaints Board’s decision does not prevent either party from submitting a 
complaint to the Board on a new basis concerning the same domain name. 

Furthermore, the Board does not have the authority to refer a case to the court system. Each party may 
bring the decision of the Board to the competent court within 8 weeks from the date of the decision. Such 
cases will be brought against the other party to the proceeding and not the Board. 

DISPUTE PROCEDURE 

As  regards  the  overall  process,  .dk  represents  the  most  significant  deviation  from  the  UDRP.  It  is  the 
outlier  of  this  DRP  analysis  because  the  policy  is  not  founded  on  the  three  cumulative  requirements 
found in the UDRP and the majority of other DRPs. 

Cases  are  ruled  according  to  the  Act  on  Domain  Names,  which  stipulates  in  Article 5  that  ‘registrants 
may not register and use domain names in violation of good domain name practice …, (and) registrants 
may  not  register  and  maintain  domain  name  registrations  solely  for  resale  or  rental  purposes51.’  The 
decision based on this criterion is left to the Complaints Board itself. In the Complaints Board’s handling 
of cases, the chairperson or the vice-chairperson will take part as well as the two members with expertise 
in law. In cases involving non-commercial use of domain names and in cases of fundamental importance, 
the representatives for consumer and commercial interests will also take part. 

The secretariat presents the complaint to the respondent with a request to present a statement (defence) 
as soon as possible and at the latest 2 weeks from receipt of the complaint. The respondent’s comments 
must then be presented to the complainant for a statement with a corresponding response deadline. The 
complainant’s  response  is  presented  to  the  respondent  in  the  same  way.  If  it  is  obvious  that  the 
respondent’s reply and the complainant’s response do not contain new information or assessments and 
that each party is thus undoubtedly aware of their contents, the secretariat need not present the reply to 
either party. 

FEES 

The  complainant  must  pay  a  fee  for  the  hearing  of  a  complaint  before  the  Complaints  Board.  The 
complaint fee is DKK 160 (EUR 21.5) where the disputed domain name is specified for non-commercial 
activities. In all other cases, the complaint fee is DKK 500 (EUR 67). If the complaint concerns several 

50 Furthermore, the Danish Domain Name Board (the Board) does not have the authority to refer a case to the court 
system.  According  to  § 30,2  of  the  Domain  Name  Act  each  party  may  bring  the  decision  of  the  Board  to  the 
competent court within 8 weeks from the date of the decision. Such cases will be brought against the other party to 
the proceeding and not the Board. 
51 https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=161869, English translation, (last visited November 2018). 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

domain names, a fee is paid for each individual domain name. The Complaints Board does not charge 
any other fees for hearing the case. 

If the Complaints Board allows the complainant’s claim in full or in part or if the case is settled on terms in 
this  respect,  the  complaint  fee  is  refunded  to  the  complainant.  The  same  applies  if  a  complaint  is 
withdrawn before the Complaints Board has made a decision in the case. 

STATISTICS 

Around 200 cases are filed per year to the Complaints Board with around 50 % of cases being ruled in 
favour of the complainant52. 

2015 

2016 

2017 

DRSP 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

207 

89 

75 

28 

15  169  82 

61 

18 

8 

248  99 

63 

9 

77 

DANISH 
COMPLAINTS 
BOARD FOR 
DOMAIN NAMES 

.EU (euADR) 

BACKGROUND 

EURid is the registry of the .eu (or ею in Cyrillic script) ccTLD. Introduced in 2005, there are now around 
4 million registered .eu domains53. Any company, individual or organisation based in the European Union 
or in Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway can register a .eu or .ею domain name54. There are around 700 
accredited registrars that can register domains for registrants. 

KEY FACTS 

Governing Rules: .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the ‘ADR Rules’)55. 

Administrative  Panel: Same as UDRP. A panel is appointed by the dispute resolution provider to rule 
on a domain name dispute. Panellists are sourced from the provider’s publicly available list of panellists 

52 https://www.domaeneklager.dk/sites/default/files/2018-02/Klagenaevnets%20arsberetning%202017%20-
%20ENDELIG.pdf (last visited November 2018). 
53 3.82 million in 2017, https://eurid.eu/en/about-us/ (last visited November 2018). 
54 To register a .EU domain name, an applicant must: i) have its registered office, central administration or principal 
place of business within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein; or ii) be an organisation established 
within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein without prejudice to the application of national law; or 
iii) be a natural person resident within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein. 
55 https://eurid.eu/d/97230/ADRRules_EN.pdf (last visited July 2018). 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

and are experienced practitioners in the areas of intellectual property law, electronic commerce and the 
internet. 

DRSPs: The CAC and WIPO. 

Complaint Filing Requirements: Any person or entity registered or residing within the European Union, 
Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint to 
any  of  the  providers  listed  above.  The  slight  difference  to  the  UDRP  is  the  complainant  has  to  specify 
why the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the domain name(s) of which a right or rights 
are recognised or established by national and/or and, either why the domain name has been registered 
by  its  holder  without  rights  or  legitimate  interests  or  why  the  domain  name  should  be  considered  as 
having been registered or being used in bad faith. 

Timeframe: A domain name dispute filed through euADR usually takes around 60-75 days. 

Possibilities to Appeal: Decisions of panellists are final and not subject to appeal56. However, should a 
complainant  or  registrant initiate  court  proceedings  within 30 days  of  the  decision being  communicated 
then the registry will not implement the panel’s decision until the matter has been satisfactorily resolved. 

DISPUTE PROCEDURE 

euADR is founded by the following European legislation: 

 

 

Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 April 2002 on 
the implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain (TLD)57, and 

Regulation  (EC)  No 874/2004  of  28 April  2004  laying  down  public  policy  rules  concerning  the 
implementation and functions of the .eu TLD and principles governing registration58. 

While the structure of euADR is substantially similar to the UDRP, there are five key differences to note: 

 

whereas the UDRP is limited to the protection of trade mark rights, euADR Rules aim to protect not 
only  trade  mark  rights,  but  also  certain  other  rights  protected  in  Europe  such  as  geographical 
indications or designations of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the 
Member  State  where  they  are  held:  unregistered  trade  marks,  trade  names,  business  identifiers, 
company names, surnames, and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works; 

56 Neither  panels  nor  dispute  resolution  providers  have  the  authority  to  formally  refer  a  case  to  the  national  court 
system. However, as with the UDRP,  if a panel concludes that a given case contains complex factual issues or is 
outside  the  scope  of  the  DRP  it  may  issue  a  denial  of  the  complaint  and  suggest,  in  the  decision,  that  the  case 
would be better decided in a court setting. This typically happens where the fact issues or external legal claims may 
impact the rights or defences of the parties in the case as they relate to the disputed domain name (e.g. questions of 
contract law, employment, etc.). In this regard, courts can adjudicate a greater range of legal claims and may offer 
the parties greater opportunities to develop the factual record of the case if discovery and witness examination are 
available. 
57 https://eurid.eu/media/filer_public/11/df/11dff973-2b59-42ee-8fe3-4bc699052c99/733_2002_en_1.pdf  (last  visited 
July 2018). 
58  https://eurid.eu/media/filer_public/4f/cf/4fcfff7a-b24c-4de4-9bb4-eac3026921df/874_2004_en_0.pdf  (last  visited 
July 2018). 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 

 

 

 

under  the  euADR  Rules,  it  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  either  registration  or  subsequent  use  of  the 
domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the complainant 
to prove both elements; 

furthermore, while the UDRP sets three cumulative requirements, under ADR a complainant needs 
to demonstrate why the challenged domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the name or 
names  in  respect  of  which  a  right  or  rights  are  recognised  or  established  by  national  and/or 
Community  law  and,  either  why  the  challenged  domain  name  has  been  registered  by  its  holder 
without  rights  or  legitimate  interests  in  respect  of  the  domain  name  that  is  the  subject  of  the 
Complaint; or why the challenged domain name should be considered as having been registered 
or being used in bad faith; 

the language of euADR proceedings must be one of the official EU languages. Unless otherwise 
agreed  by  the  parties  or  specified  otherwise  in  the  registration  agreement  between  the  domain 
holder  and  the  registrar,  the  language  of  the  euADR  proceeding  will  be  the  language  of  the 
registration agreement for the disputed domain name59; 

there are also some timing differences, which make euADR cases slightly longer than the UDRP. 
For  instance,  whereas  under  the  UDRP  a  panel  has  14 days  from  its  appointment  to  forward  its 
decision  to  the  dispute  resolution  provider,  under  euADR  Rules,  the  panel  has  1 month  for 
submitting its decision. 

FEES 

WIPO 

The complainant pays the dispute resolution provider. Costs for a single panellist range from EUR 1 300 
to  EUR 1 600  depending  on  the  number  of  domains  being  contested.  Three  panellists  will  range  from 
EUR 3 100  to  EUR 4 000  depending  on  the  number  of  domains  being  contested.  However,  as  of 
01/01/2018  EURid  has  arranged  to  temporarily  subsidise  EUR 1 000  toward  the  standard  filing  fee  for 
each .eu domain name dispute filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center meaning that this 
amount must be discounted from the official amount. 

The CAC 

Costs for a single panellist range from EUR 1 300 to EUR 1 600 depending on the number of domains 
being contested. Three panellists will range from EUR 3 100 to EUR 4 000 depending on the number of 
domains being contested. Furthermore, as of 01/01/2018 EURid has arranged to temporarily subsidise 
EUR 1 000 toward the standard filing fee for each .eu domain name dispute filed with the CAC. 

STATISTICS 

In 2017, 46 cases were filed with the CAC and 13 with WIPO60. 

59 https://eu.adr.eu/html/en/adr/adr_rules/eu%20adr%20rules.pdf (last visited July 2018). 
60

 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/cctlds_yr.jsp?year=2017, 

2018). 
https://eu.adr.eu/adr/disputed_domain_names/index.php?order_by=filing_date&dir=DESC&page=3  (last  visited  July 
2018). 

visited  November 

(last 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

2015 

2016 

2017 

DRSP 

WIPO 

CAC 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 

50 

46 

4 

0 

0 

57 

48 

9 

0 

0 

13 

46 

7 

40 

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

4 

0 

D
e
n
e
d

i

0 

6 

O
t
h
e
r

2 

0 

.IT (Modified UDRP) 

BACKGROUND 

The .it domain name is managed by Registro.it and has over 3 million registered domain names. There 
are over 1 200 licensed registrars. The registration of a domain name in the ccTLD .it is permitted only to 
persons  who  have  citizenship,  residence  or  a  registered  office  in  the  EU,  Republic  of  San  Marino, 
Switzerland  and  the  Vatican 61.  However,  many  registrants  address  these  regulations  by  contracting 
‘Trustee Services’. 

KEY FACTS 

Governing Rules: Dispute Resolution Rules for .it domain62 and Legal Guidelines63. 

Administrative  Panel: Same as UDRP. A panel is appointed by the dispute resolution provider to rule 
on a domain name dispute. Panellists are sourced from the provider’s publicly available list of panellists 
and are experienced practitioners in the areas of intellectual property law, electronic commerce and the 
internet. Each provider publishes a list of panellists and their qualifications. 

DRSP:  CRDD  (Centro  Risoluzione  Dispute  Domini),  MFSD64,  Tonucci  &  Partners65,  Camera  Arbitrale 
Nazionale e Internazionale di Milano and ADR Company66. 

Complaint  Filing  Requirements:  Same  as  UDRP.  Any  person  or  entity  may  initiate  an  administrative 
proceeding  by  submitting  a  complaint  to  any  of  the  providers  listed  above67.  There  is  no  reference  in 
either  the  Rules  or  Legal  Guidelines  to  restrictions  for  parties  that  do  not  meet  the  eligibility  criteria 
described above. 

61 http://www.nic.it/en/faq#t127n81932 (last visited November 2018). 
62 https://www.nic.it/sites/default/files/docs/Dispute_Resolution_v2.1.pdf (last visited November 2018). 
63 https://www.nic.it/sites/default/files/docs/Dispute_Resolution_Guidelines_v3.1.pdf (last visited July 2018). 
64 The name is an acronym of the founders’ surnames, http://www.mfsd.it/mfs_presentazione.php?lang_set=en_UK 
(last visited November 2018). 
65 Arbitration Firm, www.tonucci.com 
66 Listed on nic.it website but link to page is broken, http://www.adrcompany.it/ (last visited September 2018). 
67 When  trustee  services  are  used,  the  trustee  service  reviews  the  registration  request  to  prevent  trade  mark 
infringement and reduce the number of disputes or legal issues. It is not clear who would legally be considered the 
‘registrant’ in this case, but it seems to be common practice (and legitimated by registrars themselves). 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Timeframe:  A  domain  name  dispute  filed  through  the  .it  domain  dispute  resolution  providers  usually 
takes around 50 days. 

Possibilities  to  Appeal:  Decisions  of  panellists  are  final  and  not  subject  to  appeal  unless  new 
information comes to light68. However the guidelines also highlight that dispute resolution procedure ‘has 
no legal validity and as such does not preclude the parties’ right to appeal, also subsequently, to the law 
court or arbitration69.’ 

DISPUTE PROCEDURE 

The procedure for reassigning an .it domain name is based on the UDRP and requires the same three 
cumulative tests70: 

 

 

 

the domain name in dispute is identical to or such as to cause confusion with a trade mark or other 
distinctive business sign, for which the complainant claims rights, or to its name and surname; and 
that 

the respondent has no right to the domain name object of opposition and, finally, that 

the domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith (‘mala fide’). 

Unlike the UDRP, the Italian procedure provides for an initial mandatory ‘informal arbitration’ stage. This 
is designed to give the parties time to settle the dispute before the process progresses to a more formal 
dispute resolution procedure71. 

FEES 

Panellist fees from the five providers converge along similar lines. Costs for a single panellist range from 
EUR 1 200  to  EUR 2 400  depending  on  the  number  of  domains  being  contested.  Two  panellists  will 
range from EUR 3 000 to EUR 5 00072. 

68  See  4.2.22 
in  https://www.nic.it/sites/default/files/docs/Dispute_Resolution_Guidelines_v3.1.pdf  (last  visited 
November 2018); neither panels nor dispute resolution providers have the authority to formally refer a case to the 
national court system. However, if a panel concludes that a given case contains complex factual issues or is outside 
the scope of the DRP it  may issue a denial of the complaint and suggest, in the decision, that the case would be 
better decided in a court setting. This typically happens where the fact issues or external legal claims may impact 
the  rights  or  defences  of  the  parties  in  the  case  as  they  relate  to  the  disputed  domain  name  (e.g.  questions  of 
contract law, employment, etc.) In this regard, courts can adjudicate a greater range of legal claims and may offer 
the parties greater opportunities to develop the factual record of the case if discovery and witness examination are 
available. 
69  Dispute  Resolution  Guidelines  v2.1,  https://www.nic.it/sites/default/files/docs/Dispute_Resolution_v2.1.pdf  (last 
visited November, 2018). 
70 https://www.nic.it/sites/default/files/docs/Dispute_Resolution_v2.1.pdf (last visited November 2018). 
71http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Magazine/Issue/66/Country-correspondents/Alternative-dispute-resolution-
proceedings-involving-it-domain-names-in-2016, (last visited November 2018), 
http://www.nic.it/sites/default/files/docs/Dispute_Resolution_Guidelines_v3.1.pdf (last visited November 2018). 
72 https://www.camera-arbitrale.it/en/domain-names-disputes/fees.php?id=107 (last visited November 2018). 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

STATISTICS 

In 2017, 37 cases were decided through proceedings across all five DRSPs. In nearly 70 % of decisions, 
the  panels  upheld  the  complaint  and  ordered  the  transfer  of  the  contested  domain  name  to  the 
complainant73. 

2015 

2016 

2017 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

25 

17 

0 

3 

5 

35 

24 

0 

6 

5 

37 

24 

0 

5 

8 

DRSP 

5 LICENSED 
PROVIDERS 

NOTES 

 

 

‘Terminated’  category,  according  to  nic.it  data  could  refer  to  cases  that  were  either  settled  by 
mediation or not. 

Within the ‘Other’ category is an ‘inadmissible’ designation, which was provided in the raw data set 
provided by nic.it but it is unclear on what basis these cases were not resolved. 

.UK (Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS)) 

BACKGROUND 

Nominet  is  the  registry  for  the  .uk  domain  which  has  over  10 million  domain  name  registrations  and 
around 3 000 accredited registrars. There are no territorial restrictions for .uk domain names; applicants 
do not need to have any connection to the UK74. The four main top-level domains (TLDs) within the .uk 
domain are75: 

 
 
 
 

.uk 
.co.uk 
.org.uk 
.me.uk 

KEY FACTS 

Governing Rules: Nominet DRS Policy76. 

73 http://www.nic.it/en/psrd-decisions (last visited July 2018). 
74 There are some restrictions for select domains known as ‘restricted second level domains’ such as, for example, 
.ltd.uk. 
75 https://www.theukdomain.uk/faqs/ (last visited November 2018). 
76

 https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17150434/final-proposed-DRS-

policy.pdf (last visited November 2018). 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Administrative Panel: If the case could not be settled by mediation, the complainant can appoint (for a 
fee, see below) an independent adjudicator, referred to as the Expert, to make a binding decision about 
what should happen to the domain name. Experts are screened by Nominet and their profiles are publicly 
available  on  the  website77.  An  Expert  can  arrive  at  a  ‘summary  decision’,  which  does  not  contain  a 
detailed written decision, if the respondent does not submit a response to the complaint. However, if the 
respondent does respond, a full decision must be reached78. The summary decision is not a ‘default’ win 
for the complainant, though, as the Expert still has to satisfy itself that the complaint should succeed and 
that no detailed written decision is needed. 

DRSP: Nominet. 

Complaint  Filing  Requirements: The complaint must describe the grounds on which the complaint is 
made  including  in  particular:  what  rights  the  complainant  asserts  in  the  name  or  trade  mark;  why  the 
domain  name  should  be  considered  to  be  in  bad  faith,  as  well  as  any  other  grounds  that  support  the 
complainant’s assertion. 

Timeframe:  Mediated  and  summary  decision  cases  take  around  60 days,  whereas  full  decision  cases 
can take nearly 100 days79. 

Possibilities  to  Appeal:  An  internal  appeal  mechanism  is  available  with  Nominet.  An  appeal  must  be 
filed within 10 working days of the original decision being made. Either party is at liberty to submit the 
dispute  to  a  court,  however,  if  it  is  submitted  during  the  dispute  process  this  will  result  in  the  dispute 
process being suspended until the outcome of those legal proceedings. 

DISPUTE PROCEDURE 

Nominet’s  DRS  follows  a  set  of  rules  called  the  DRS  Policy,  and  follows  a  path  made  up  of  different 
stages, which is similar in substance to the UDRP80. 

Stage  1  —  Complaint  and  Response — The complainant submits its complaint to Nominet. Nominet 
sends  a  copy  of  this  complaint  to  the  registrant/respondent.  The  respondent  has  a  set  time  frame  to 
submit a response. This is then sent to the complainant, who can comment on it. 

Stage  2  —  Mediation — If there has been a response, the complainant and respondent are given the 
(obligatory) opportunity to use Nominet’s free mediation service to try and settle their dispute, although 
the  respondent  is  not  required  to  respond.  One  of  Nominet’s  internal  mediators  helps  the  parties  to 
discuss  a  potential  settlement.  Mediators  are  neutral  and  will  not  judge  the  case.  Mediation  is  always 
confidential. 

Stage  3  —  Expert  Decision — If there was no response from the respondent within 10 days, or if the 
case  could  not  be  settled  by  mediation,  the  complainant  can  appoint  (for  a  fee,  see  below)  an 
independent adjudicator, referred to as the Expert, to make a binding decision about what should happen 
to the domain name. 

77

 https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/06105119/DRS-Experts-List-

2017.pdf (last visited November 2018). 
78 According to Nominet data, in 2017 there were 712 complaints made, 106 were resolved by parties themselves, 
76 by mediation, 184 by summary decision and 104 by full decision. Other outcomes that did not result in a decision 
include fee not paid, invalid, and withdrawn. 
79

 https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/29131553/2017-in-UK-web-

domain-dispute-resolution-2017.pdf (last visited November 2018). 
80 https://www.nominet.uk/domains/resolving-uk-domain-disputes-and-complaints/ (last visited November 2018). 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Stage 4 — Appeal — Appeals are rare, but parties who want their case re-examined, can file an appeal. 
An appeal must be filed with Nominet within 10 working days of the original decision being made. 

Final  Stage  (Closure)  —  If  the  Expert  awards  a  transfer,  cancellation  or  suspension  of  the  domain 
name,  Nominet  will  make  the  required  changes  to  the  domain  name  registration  records.  The  Expert 
decision  will  also  be  published  on  the  Nominet  website.  If  the  parties  entered  into  a  settlement  in 
mediation, the mediator will help the parties to fulfil the terms of such settlement. If neither party takes 
any further action, the DRS case file will be closed. 

An important distinction between Nominet DRS and the UDRP is that the Nominet DRS does not require 
that both the registration and use of the domain name be unfair (in bad faith). It is also important to note 
that, as with the UDRP, unfair use of a domain name covers use for any purpose, such as for a website 
or email. 

FEES81 

In cases where there was no response from the respondent during the mediation, the  complainant can 
opt for the Expert to make a summary decision on the case. This costs GBP 200 plus VAT (EUR 227). 

In all other cases, for instance if the parties failed to come to a settlement during mediation, an Expert 
(full) decision costs GBP 750 plus VAT (EUR 852). In the case of an appeal, the appeal will be heard by 
a panel of three Experts and costs GBP 3 000 (EUR 3 360) plus VAT. 

STATISTICS 

According to Nominet data, in 2017 there were 712 complaints made, 106 were resolved by the parties 
themselves82, 76 by mediation (aggregated as ‘Terminated’ in the table below), 184 by summary decision 
and 104 by full decision. Other outcomes that did not result in a decision include: fee not paid, invalid, 
and withdrawn83. 

81 https://www.nominet.uk/domains/resolving-uk-domain-disputes-and-complaints/ (last visited November 2018). 
82 It is not clear how disputes were resolved by the parties themselves without mediation. It is assumed that this is 
something done informally before the official mediation process begins. 
83 https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/29131553/2017-in-UK-web-
domain-dispute-resolution-2017.pdf (last visited November 2018). 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Out of the nearly 300 Expert decisions in 2017, 200 resulted in a transfer decision (i.e. in favour of the 
complainant)84. 

2015 

2016 

2017 

DRSP 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

NOMINET DRS  728  220  40  253  215  703  248 

52  179  224  712  247 

39 

182  244 

.CN (CNDRP) 

BACKGROUND 

The  .cn  domain  name  system  is  managed  by  the  China  Internet  Network  Information  Centre  (CNNIC) 
registry. Any individual may register a .cn domain name, and there are hundreds of domestic and foreign 
accredited registrars. There are now over 20 million .cn registered domains. 

KEY FACTS 

Governing  Rules:  Domain  name  disputes  are  resolved  through  the CNNIC  ccTLD Dispute Resolution 
Policy (CNDRP85) and Rules86. 

Administrative Panel: Same as UDRP87. 

DRSP:  China  International  Economic  and  Trade  Arbitration  Commission  (CIETAC)  and  Hong  Kong 
International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC)88. 

Complaint Filing Requirements: Filing requirements are the same as the UDRP. However, in the event 
that the domain name concerned has been registered for more than 2 years, the two providers (CIETAC 
and HKIAC) do not accept complaints concerning this domain name. Consequently, brand owners that 
fail to file a complaint within 2 years of registration of the domain are limited to seeking redress from the 
Chinese  courts 89.  In  such  circumstance,  the  dispute  may  only  be  submitted  to  a  national  court  for 
resolution.  However,  the  HKIAC  has  recently  ruled  that  the  transfer  of  a  ‘.cn’  domain  name  from  one 
party  to  another  constitutes  a  new  registration  under  the  CNDRP  and  ‘resets’  the  2-year  time  limit  for 
bringing a domain name complaint90. In this case, filing requirements are the same as the UDRP. 

84 https://secure.nominet.org.uk/drs/search-
disputes.html?action.browseBasicSearchResults=y&sortAscending=false&sortColumn=&page=8 (last visited 
November 2018). 
85 http://cnnic.com.cn/IS/CNym/cnzcfg/201411/t20141117_50211.htm (last visited November 2018). 
86 http://cnnic.com.cn/IS/CNym/cnzcfg/201411/t20141117_50212.htm (last visited November 2018). 
87 Chapter I, K in the Rules — Panellists are individuals who are listed in the name list of panellists approved by the 
provider and published on the provider’s website, and qualified to be members of the panel for the resolution of the 
domain name disputes. 
88 http://cnnic.com.cn/IS/CNym/cnymyhfaq/ (last visited November 2018). 
89 https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/China_2_7120.aspx (last visited November 2018). 
90 https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/China_2_7120.aspx (last visited November 2018). 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Timeframe: 50-60 days. 

Possibilities  to  Appeal:  No  appeal  mechanism.  The  same  procedure  as  the  UDRP  for  delaying  the 
enforcement of a decision in light of court proceedings applies. 

DISPUTE PROCEDURE 

The CNDRP is substantially the same as the UDRP, with two key differences: 

 

 

bad  faith  —  it  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  either  registration  or  use  of  the  domain  name  by  the 
registrant is in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the complainant to prove both; 

rights covered — requisite rights that the complainant can refer to in their complaint under CNDRP 
are referred to as ‘civil rights or interests’ instead of ‘name or mark’, which clearly extend beyond 
trade mark rights as in the UDRP. 

FEES 

Fees range from CNY 8 000 to CNY 16 000 (EUR 1 064 to EUR 2 128) for one panellist and CNY 14 000 
to  CNY 24 000  (EUR 1 862  to  EUR 3 191)  for  three  panellists  depending  on  the  number  of  domain 
names being contested per case. 

STATISTICS 

58  cases  were  filed  and  resolved  through  the  CIETAC  Online  Dispute  Resolution  Centre  in  2017.  75 
were filed through the HKIAC in 201791. 

2015 

2016 

2017 

DRSP 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

CIETAC 

HKIAC 

64 

59 

48 

57 

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

4 

D
e
n
e
d

i

8 

1 

O
t
h
e
r

4 

1 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

63 

52 

54 

45 

D
e
n
e
d

i

5 

1 

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

0 

3 

O
t
h
e
r

4 

3 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

58 

75 

52 

66 

D
e
n
e
d

i

2 

5 

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

1 

1 

O
t
h
e
r

3 

3 

91  http://dndrc.cietac.org/  and  http://www.hkiac.org/ip-and-domain-name/domain-dispute-resolution/statistics  (last 
visited November 2018). 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

.JP (JP-DRP) 

BACKGROUND 

The .jp domain name system is managed by the Japan Registry Services (JPRS) registry. There are over 
1.5 million .jp domain names in existence today92. Individuals and companies can  register a .jp domain 
name if they reside or operate in Japan (the registrant contact country must be Japan). 

KEY FACTS 

Governing Rules: JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy93 and Rules94 (JPD-DRP). 

Administrative Panel: Same as UDRP. 

DRSP: The Japanese Intellectual Property Arbitration Centre (JIPAC). 

Complaint Filing Requirements: Same as UDRP. 

Timeframe: 60-70 days. 

Possibilities  to  Appeal:  No  appeal  mechanism.  The  same  procedure  as  the  UDRP  for  delaying  the 
enforcement of a decision in light of court proceedings applies. 

DISPUTE PROCEDURE 

JP-DRP is  substantially  modelled  on  the UDRP, however,  some  of  its provisions  do  not  reproduce the 
provisions  of  the  UDRP  as  they  stand,  but  have  been  partially  localised  to  reflect  local  and  national 
requirements in Japan with regard to the following95. 

 

‘Trademarks’ as a basis for filing a domain dispute — Under the UDRP, the basis for a complaint 
are ‘trademarks or service marks’, including well-known personal names and brands96. However, in 
JP-DRP,  if  a  ‘trademark’  is  used  as  the  basis  for  a  complaint,  this  will  be  construed  as  being 
restricted to ‘trademarks’ as defined under the Japanese Trademark Act, and to not include well-
known personal names or brands. Given that well-known personal names could become a target 
for cyber-squatting, the JP-DRP therefore specifies ‘trademark or other indication [sic]’ as the basis 
of  the  complaint.  This  can  be  interpreted  more  broadly  than  ‘trademarks’  as  defined  under  the 
Trademark  Act  and  also  allows  well-known  personal  names  and  non-trademarked  brands  to  be 
covered in a complaint97. 

 

Determining  registration  and  use  in  bad  faith  or  for  unfair  purposes  —  Under  the  UDRP, 
complainants are required to prove that the domain name has been registered ‘and’ is being used 

92 https://jprs.co.jp/en/press/2018/180205.html (last visited November 2018). 
93 https://www.nic.ad.jp/doc/jpnic-01221.html (last visited November 2018). 
94 https://www.nic.ad.jp/doc/jpnic-01222.html (last visited November 2018). 
95 https://www.nic.ad.jp/en/drp/differences.html (last visited November 2018). 
96 https://www.nic.ad.jp/en/drp/differences.html (last visited November 2018). 
97 https://www.nic.ad.jp/en/drp/differences.html (last visited November 2018). 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

in  bad  faith.  Under  the  JP-DRP,  the  complaint  will  be  accepted  if  the  domain  name  has  been 
registered ‘or’ is being used in bad faith98. 

FEES 

In cases that are heard by one panellist, the fee is JPY 180 000 (EUR 1 411). However, in cases where 
the number of domain names in the same written application exceeds four, the complainant is charged 
JPY 10 000 (EUR 78) for each additional domain. In cases that are heard by three panellists, the fee is 
JPY 360 000  (EUR 2 822)  with  the  same  additional  fee  structure  applying  for  more  than  four  domain 
names99. 

STATISTICS 

Only five procedures were filed in the whole of 2017100. 

2015 

2016 

2017 

DRSP 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

JIPAC 

7 

5 

0 

1 

1 

9 

6 

0 

3 

0 

5 

3 

0 

2 

0 

.US (usDRP) 

BACKGROUND 

Neustar  Inc.,  a  provider  of  registry  services,  manages  the  .us  domain  name  on  behalf  of  the  US 
Department  of  Commerce 101 .  The  .us  domain  name  was  introduced  in  1985.  There  are  now 
approximately  2 million  registered  .us  domain  names,  and  158  licensed  registrars.  Registrants  of  .us 
domains must be US citizens, residents, or organisations, or a foreign entity with a presence in the US. 

KEY FACTS 

Governing Rules: usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy102. 

Administrative Panel: Same as UDRP. 

DRSP: National Arbitration Forum (NAF), American Arbitration Association (AAA). 

98 ‘Bad faith’ and ‘unfair purposes’ are used interchangeably in JP-DRP, generally referring to ‘unfair purposes, that 
is,  purposes  of  gaining  unfair  interests,  of  causing  damages  to  others  and  other  unfair  purposes’  Art 2.  JP-DRP 
Rules, https://www.nic.ad.jp/doc/jpnic-01221.html (last visited November 2018). 
99 https://www.ip-adr.gr.jp/eng/business/domain/jp-4.php (last visited November 2018). 
100 https://www.nic.ad.jp/ja/drp/list/2017/ (last visited November 2018). 
101 http://www.about.us/faqs (last visited November 2018). 
102 https://www.about.us/policies/ustld-dispute-resolution-policy (last visited November 2018). 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Complaint Filing Requirements: Same as UDRP. No reference is made in the Rules or the Procedure 
to eligibility criteria for filing a complaint. 

Timeframe: 60-70 days in most cases. 

Possibilities  to  Appeal:  No  appeal  mechanism.  The  same  procedure  as  the  UDRP  for  delaying  the 
enforcement of a decision in light of court proceedings applies. 

DISPUTE PROCEDURE 

The  usDRP  is  substantially  the  same  as  the  UDRP,  both  in  terms  of  process  and  in  policy,  with  the 
following two differences: 

 

 

‘How to demonstrate rights to legitimate interests in the domain name …’103,  which specifies that a 
respondent  can  demonstrate  its  legitimate  rights  by  proving  to  be  the  ‘… owner  or  beneficiary  of  a 
trade or service mark that is identical to the domain name.’104

, and 

the use of the disjunctive ‘or’ rather than ‘and’ in the bad faith element under 4(a)(iii) of the usTLD 
Dispute Resolution Policy105. 

FEES 

Fees  range  from  USD 1 300  to  USD 2 250  (EUR 1 121  to  EUR 1 939)  for  a  single-member  panel  and 
USD 2 600 to USD 5 000 (EUR 2 241 to EUR 4 310) for a three-member panel depending on the number 
of disputed domain names106. 

STATISTICS 

The AAA has unofficially ceased to operate as a dispute resolution services provider for the .us domain. 
The NAF  therefore  processes  all  of  the  cases,  of  which  there  were  nearly  100  filed  in  2017  with  87 % 
ruled in favour of the complainants107. 

103 http://www.about.us/policies/ustld-dispute-resolution-policy (last visited November 2018). 
104 Paragraph 4c (i), https://www.about.us/policies/ustld-dispute-resolution-policy (last visited November 2018); This 
factor does not alter the procedure or decision-making criteria in any material fashion but it is an additional factor not 
included in the UDRP. 
105 http://www.adrforum.com/ccTld (last visited November 2018). 
106 http://www.adrforum.com/resources/CcTld/usDRP/usDRP%20Supp%20Rules%202014%20FINAL.pdf (last 
visited November 2018). 
107 http://www.adrforum.com/SearchDecisions (last visited July 2018). 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

2015 

2016 

2017 

DRSP 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

NAF 

35 

33 

2 

0 

0 

42 

40 

2 

0 

0 

71 

70 

1 

0 

0 

.NL (Modified UDRP) 

BACKGROUND 

The  .nl  domain  was  introduced  in  1986  and  now  has  over  5.8 million  registered  domain  names.  It  is 
administered by the Foundation for Internet Domain Registration Netherlands (SIDN), which has licensed 
over 1 300 .nl registrars108. 

KEY FACTS 

Governing Rules: Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names framework109. 

Administrative Panel: Same as UDRP. 

DRSP: WIPO. 

Complaint Filing Requirements: Same as UDRP. 

Timeframe: 40-60 days (90 days in cases involving mediation). 

Possibilities  to  Appeal:  No  appeal  mechanism.  The  same  procedure  as  the  UDRP  for  delaying  the 
enforcement of a decision in light of court proceedings applies. 

DISPUTE PROCEDURE 

While the .nl dispute procedure is substantially the same as the UDRP, there is an important addition of a 
(mandatory) mediation stage, similar to those stipulated for the .it and .uk domain name disputes110. This 
is a free-of-charge process and begins once a dispute has been filed with WIPO. The mediation process 
ends within 30 calendar days of its commencement, or as soon as the SIDN determines that mediation 
has not been successful111. 

108 https://www.sidn.nl/a/about-sidn/what-we-do (last visited November 2018). 
109 https://www.sidn.nl/downloads/procedures/Dispute+Resolution+Regulations+for+nl+Domain+Names.pdf (last 
visited November 2018). 
110 https://www.sidn.nl/downloads/procedures/Dispute+Resolution+Regulations+for+nl+Domain+Names.pdf (last 
visited July 2018). 
111 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/nl/index.html (last visited November 2018). 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

There are four additional differences in procedure compared with the UDRP112: 

 

 

 

 

whereas  the  UDRP  is  limited  to  the  protection  of  trade  mark  rights  against  infringement  through 
bad  faith  registration  and  use  of  a  domain  name,  the  ‘Dispute  Resolution  Regulations  for  .nl 
Domain  Names’  aims  to  protect  not  only  trade  mark  rights,  but  also  certain  other  rights  such  as 
trade names and registered personal names protected in the Netherlands; 

it is sufficient to prove that either registration or use of the domain name by the registrant is in bad 
faith, whereas the UDRP requires the complainant to prove both; 

only one-person panels are permitted (no three-member panels are possible); 

proceedings  can  also  be  conducted  in  English  depending  on  the  location  of  the  parties  and  the 
circumstances of the case. 

FEES 

Fees are EUR 1 500 for between 1 and 5 domain names and EUR 2 000 for between 6 and 10 domain 
names113. 

STATISTICS 

There were 74 cases filed at WIPO in 2017 with slightly more than half of cases ruled in favour of the 
complainant. 

2015 

2016 

2017 

DRSP 

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
a
s
e
s

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s

D
e
n
e
d

i

i

T
e
r
m
n
a
t
e
d

O
t
h
e
r

WIPO 

75 

37 

2 

36 

0 

65 

35 

4 

25 

1 

74 

37 

0 

37 

0 

112 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/nl/index.html (last visited November 2018). 
113 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/cctlds/nl/index.html (last visited November 2018). 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
SUMMARY STATISTICS 

# 

gTLD/ 
ccTLD 

DRP 

DRSP 

Mediation 
Stage 

Procedure 
Timeframe 

Appeal 
Mechanism 

Restrictions 

1 

All gTLDs  UDRP 

ACDR 
ADNDRC 
CAC 
NAF 
WIPO 
RI 
WIPO 
Complaints 
Board 
WIPO 

CAC 

.auDRP 

Danish Domain 
Name Board 
euADR 

Modified UDRP  5 licensed 
providers 
Nominet DRS  Nominet 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

.AU 

.DK 

.EU 

.IT 

.UK 

7 

.CN 

CNDRP 

8 

9 

.JP 

.US 

JP-DRP 

.USDRP 

CIETAC 

HKIAC 

JPNIC  

NAF 

None 

None 

~50 days 

~45 days 

None 

60-70 days  None 

Must be Australian citizen or foreign 
company licensed to operate in Australia 
None 

60-75 days  None 

50-60 days  None 

Yes 

60 days for 
mediation or 
summary; 
90 for full 
decisions 
50-60 days  None 

60-70 days  None 

60-70 days  None 

Person or entity registered or residing 
within the European Union, Iceland, 
Liechtenstein or Norway 
None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

No 

No 

At discretion 
of secretariat  

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Fees (range)* 

1 Panellist 
€1 290-€1 720 
€1 120-€1 640 
€800-€1 100 
€1 110-€1 540 
€1 290-€1 720 
€1 270 
€1 270 
€21-€70 

3 Panellists 
€3 450-€4 310 
€2 410-€3 275 
€2 600-€3 200 
€2 230-€3 090 
€3 450-€4 310 
€2 870 
€2 870 
-not an option under DRP 

€1 300-€1 600 

€3 100-€4 000 

€1 300-€1 600 

€3 100-€4 000 

€1 200-€2 400 

€850 

€3 000-€5 000 (2 panellists 
only) 
-not an option under DRS 

€1 064-€2 128 

€1 064-€2 128 

€1 410 

€1 862-€3 191 

€1 862-€3 191 

€2 820 

€1 121-€1 939 

€2 241-€4 310 

10 

.NL 

Modified UDRP  WIPO 

Yes 

*Assumed less than 10 domain names are disputed 

40-60 days 
(90 days in 
cases 
involving 
mediation) 

None 

None 

€1 500 

-not an option under DRP 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DRP 

DRSP 

2015 

Statistics 
2016 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 
7 

8 
9 
10 

gTLD/ 
ccTLD 

All 
gTLDs 
adopting 
UDRP 

UDRP 

.AU 

.auDRP 

ACDR 
ADNDRC 
CAC 
NAF 
WIPO 
RI 
WIPO 
Complaints Board 

WIPO 
CAC 

.DK 

.EU 

.IT 

.UK 
.CN 

.JP 
.US 
.NL 

Danish Domain 
Name Board 
euADR 

Modified UDRP  5 licensed 
providers 
Nominet DRS  Nominet 
CIETAC 
CNDRP 
HKIAC 
JPNIC 
NAF 

JP-DRP 
.USDRP  
Modified UDRP  WIPO 

N/A 
N/A 
82 

Cases  Transfer  Denied  Terminated  Other  Cases  Transfer  Denied  Terminated  Other 
N/A  N/A 
N/A 
N/A  N/A 
N/A 
96 
3 
1 267  1 138 
4 
2 754  1 943 
53 
12 
0 
39 
0 

97 
1 181  1 075 
3 036  2 253 
8 
52 

N/A 
N/A 
9 
100 
185 
1 
4 

N/A 
N/A 
0 
2 
575 
3 
9 

N/A 
N/A 
11 
123 
183 
6 
6 

N/A 
N/A 
0 
2 
541 
1 
14 

N/A 
N/A 
0 
4 
57 
0 
1 

N/A 
N/A 
88 

3 
24 

5 
33 

N/A 
N/A 
186 

2017 
Cases  Transfer  Denied  Terminated  Other 
N/A 
N/A 
201 
1 390  1 294 
3 074  2 331 
13 
42 

N/A 
N/A 
14 
88 
167 
2 
4 

N/A 
N/A 
0 
5 
535 
1 
10 

N/A 
N/A 
1 
3 
41 
0 
0 

10 
28 

207 
N/A 
50 

25 
728 
64 
59 
7 
35 
75 

89 
N/A 
46 

17 
220 
48 
57 
5 
33 
37 

75 
N/A 
4 

0 
40 
8 
1 
0 
2 
2 

28 
N/A 
0 

3 
253 
4 
0 
1 
0 
36 

169 
15 
N/A  NA/ 
0 

57 

5 
215 
4 
1 
1 
0 
0 

35 
703 
63 
52 
9 
42 
65 

82 
N/A 
48 

24 
248 
54 
45 
6 
40 
35 

61 
N/A 
9 

0 
52 
5 
1 
0 
2 
4 

18 
N/A 
0 

6 
179 
0 
3 
3 
0 
25 

8 
N/A 
0 

5 
224 
4 
3 
0 
0 
1 

248 
13 
46 

37 
712 
58 
75 
5 
71 
74 

99 
7 
40 

24 
247 
52 
66 
3 
70 
37 

63 
0 
6 

0 
39 
2 
5 
0 
1 
0 

9 
4 
0 

5 
182 
1 
1 
2 
0 
37 

77 
2 
0 

8 
244 
3 
3 
0 
0 
0 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

5  DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE CASE SCENARIOS 

INTRODUCTION 

As  previously  described,  the  report  enlisted  the  support  of  sitting  panellists  from  each  of  the  DRPs 
assessed.  For  each  of  the  eleven  hypothetical  case  scenarios  provided,  the  panellists  defined  the  key 
factors  to  consider  according  to  the  requirements  stipulated  in  their  DRP  of  expertise  as  well  as  the 
conditions for deciding in favour of the complainant and registrant and the filing frequency of similar real-
life  cases.  This  information  is  summarised  in  colour-coded  tables  in  the  following  pages  for  each  case 
scenario. 

Importantly, given all of the DRPs (with the exception of the Danish Domain Name Board) comprise three 
fundamental tests that must be met for a decision in favour of the complainant114, it is assumed that all 
panels  will  take  these  into  account  during  their  deliberations.  However,  in  scenarios  where  decisions 
diverge, the analysis looks at different interpretations of these three tests and identifies decision-making 
frameworks that have been developed based on case precedent. 

Furthermore, the depth of analysis and number of factors to consider varies between the different case 
scenarios.  This  is  due  to  the  varying  level  of  detail  provided  in  the  case  description.  For  instance, 
Scenario #1 (Registration of domain name in good faith with subsequent bad faith use) states that initial 
good faith registration and subsequent bad faith usage has been established, meaning that the analysis 
must focus exclusively on the DRP decision based on its own policies and rules. However, other cases 
such  as  Scenario #8  (domain  name  that  relates  to  the  owner’s  surname,  that  coincides  with  a  trade 
mark)  and  #9  (domain  name  that  includes  country  abbreviations  combined  with  new  gTLDs  such  as 
‘de.travel’ instead of ‘travel.de’) do not provide such context, resulting in panellists reviewing related — 
hypothetical  —  scenarios  to  outline  key  factors  that  would  need  to  be  considered.  For  instance,  both 
Scenario #8  and  #9  necessitated  establishing  the  grounds  for  which  a  complainant  or  respondent  can 
assert their rights in a registered or unregistered trade mark. It is only after this is established that the 
panellist  can  determine  whether  the  domain  is  identical  or  confusingly  similar  to  the  trade  mark  and 
whether the registrant has acted in bad faith. 

The characteristics of the given scenarios are central to interpreting the data because decisions revolve 
around specific details of each case brought to a panel. For example, in relation to Scenario #4 (Tribute 
Site), all of the panellists agreed that decisions would favour the respondent only if all factors of the given 
scenario were present and found to be correct.  In  this instance, that would mean that the panel would 
find beyond reasonable doubt that the fan page was being operated in good faith (in other words, the fan 
site is found to be a legitimate fan site) and was not being operated for any improper commercial gain. 
These aspects seem to be taken for granted in the given scenarios, but it is still important to note. 

Similarly,  in  relation  to  Scenario #6  (Generic  Terms),  while  it  was  not  specified  in  the  scenario 
description,  it  was  concluded  that  a  panel  would  need  to  assess  whether  the  generic  term  is  being 
utilised in its generic sense and not encroaching on the trade mark’s business or commercial interests. 
Only if the domain name was found to be used in its generic sense and the website was being operated 
in good faith, would panels be likely to rule in favour of the respondent. 

Finally,  it  is  important  to  acknowledge  that  the  scenario  findings  are  based  on  the  opinions  of  one 
panellist  from  each  DRP.  While  many  panellists  relied  on  jurisprudential  overviews  of  their  respective 
DRPs, it  is  still  possible  that  their  opinions may  not  represent  a  consensus viewpoint. While measures 

114 As  set  out  in  Section 4,  these  requirements  are  variations  of  the  following:  i)  domain  name  is  identical  or 
confusingly  similar to  trade  mark,  and  ii)  respondent  has  no  rights  or legitimate  interests  in  respect  of  the  domain 
name and iii) the domain name has been registered and/or is being used in bad faith. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

have  been  taken  during  this  analysis  to  ensure  that  panellists  referred  to  consensus  views  as  well  as 
minority views, the possibility of a different outcome from another panellist exists. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #1:  REGISTRATION  OF  DOMAIN  NAME 
SUBSEQUENT BAD FAITH USE 

IN  GOOD  FAITH  WITH 

Example: An initial fan page that over time comes to sell competing products. 

Ruling in favour of 
respondent in given scenario 

Ruling in favour of 
complainant in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific 
variables within scenario 

Outside scope of DRS 

Key Factors 

UDRP 

• Article 4 (a) (iii) requires panel to consider registration and use 
• If registration is found to be in good faith then panel will tend to rule in favour of respondent 

.auDRP 

• Subsequent use in bad faith is sufficient to rule in favour of the complainant 
• Panel looks at subsequent bad faith usage irrespective of original registration 

.DK 

• Registration and use of a domain name must not be contrary to ‘good domain name practise’ 

euADR 

• Subsequent use in bad faith is sufficient to rule in favour of the complainant 
• Panel looks at subsequent bad faith usage irrespective of original registration 

.ITADR 

• As UDRP 

• Subsequent use in bad faith is sufficient to rule in favour of the complainant 
• Panel looks at subsequent bad faith usage irrespective of original registration 

.UKADR 

CNDRP 

JP-DRP 

usDRP 

.nlADR 

NOTES 

While fan sites are generally allowed under all of the studies’ dispute resolution procedures on the basis 
that they are active and non-commercial, this scenario has been interpreted by the panellists on the basis 
that notwithstanding a legitimate initial registration purpose, bad faith use is obvious. This is to say that 
the question is how the panel will likely rule given good faith at the time of registration with bad faith use 
only established afterwards. 

With the exception of the UDRP and .ITADR, this scenario will be judged mainly on whether the disputed 
domain  name  has  been  registered  or  is  being  used  in  bad  faith115.  Due  to  the  use  of  the  word  ‘or’  (in 
contrast  to  use  of  the  word  ‘and’,  which  is  utilised  in  the  UDRP  and  .ITADR),  panels  need  only 
specifically consider the present use by the domain holder. Given the scenario description, all DRPs with 
the  exception  of  the  UDRP  and  .ITADR  would  therefore  likely  rule  in  favour  of  the  complainant,  if  it  is 
established that the current use is in bad faith. 

In  contrast  to  the  other  DRPs,  the  Danish  Domain  Name  Board  considers  a  much  broader  and  more 
general  set  of  rules.  As  the  concept  of  ‘bad  faith’  is  not  directly  applied  in  .dk  disputes,  the  Danish 
Domain Name Board will consider whether the use of a domain name is contrary to ‘good domain name 
practise’. In cases of bad faith, this would likely lead the Panel to rule in favour of the complainant, but it 

115 This is paraphrasing the rules of all of the DRPs with the exception of the UDRP, .ITADR and the Danish Domain 
Name Board. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

is important to note that the decision would not be guided by a formal set of rules and requirements to be 
established as in the other DRPs. 

Experts were generally in agreement that these types of cases comprise less than 5 % of total cases. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #2: RESELLERS AND IMPORTERS 

Example: An importer of a product registers a ccTLD domain with the same name as the manufacturer’s 
global website. 

Ruling in favour of 
respondent in given scenario 

Ruling in favour of 
complainant in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific 
variables within scenario 

Outside scope of DRS 

UDRP 

Only if the following four ‘Oki Data test’ principles are met: 

Key Factors 

• respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; 
• respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services; 
• site must accurately and prominently disclose the respondent’s relationship with the trade mark holder; 
• domain name may not consist solely of the complainant’s trade mark. 

.auDRP 

.DK 

Same as UDRP 

• Scenario would be ruled as trade mark infringement. 

euADR 

Same as UDRP 

.ITADR 

.UKADR 

CNDRP 

JP-DRP 

usDRP 

.nlADR 

NOTES 

Panellists  across  all  of  the  DRPs  (excluding  the  Danish  Domain  Name  Board)  all  recognised  that 
resellers, distributors or importers using a  domain name containing a complainant’s trade mark may be 
making  a  bona  fide  offering  of  goods  and  services  and  thus  have  a  legitimate  interest  in  the  domain 
name, even when making the presumption that the registrant did not have prior authorisation of the trade 
mark holder to register the domain. However, this would only be the case if certain criteria, known as the 
Oki  Data  test,  are  met.  Panellists  refer  to  the  Oki  Data  case116,  which  set  out  a  four-factor  test  to 
determine  if  an  authorised  reseller,  importer  or  other  distributor  is  making  a  fair  referential  use  of  the 
complainant’s mark by incorporating it into a domain name. 

 

 

The respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue. 

The  respondent  must  use  the  site  to  sell  only  the  trademarked  goods  or  services.  Otherwise  it 
could be using the trade mark to bait internet users and then switch them to other goods. 

116 Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No D2001-0903, <okidataparts.com>. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 

 

The  site  must  accurately  and  prominently  disclose  the  respondent’s  relationship  with  the  trade 
mark holder. The respondent may not, for example, falsely suggest that it is the trade mark owner, 
or that the website is the official site, if, in fact, it is only one of many sales agents. 

The respondent must not try to ‘corner the market’ in domain names that reflect the trade mark. In 
other  words,  the  domain  name  may  not  consist  solely  of  the  complainant’s  trade  mark  and  the 
respondent  must  not  have  registered  multiple  domains  that  incorporate  the  complainant’s  trade 
mark or other protected name. 

Provided all the requirements are met, and there are no other facts that would indicate that the domain 
holder lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the panel will likely rule in favour 
of the respondent. If not all of the above requirements are met, the panel will likely rule in favour of the 
complainant. The most common situation in which this occurs is where goods are sold on a website that 
competes  with  the  complainant’s  own  products  or  where  the  website  fails  to  sufficiently  disclose  the 
relationship (or lack thereof) with the complainant. 

Importantly,  domain  names  owned  by  resellers,  distributors  or  importers  that  are  identical  to  a 
complainant’s trade mark will not be deemed good faith under any of the DRPs. The criteria established 
in the Oki Data decision would only be applied in cases where the domain name consists of a trade mark 
plus an additional term, for example, <[brand]parts.nl>. Although in this instance it is not clear from the 
hypothetical scenario description whether the domain name has been registered with an additional term, 
it is assumed to be the case. 

The Danish Domain Name Board is the outlier in this scenario, such that the panel would likely rule in 
favour  of  the  complainant  because  registration  of  the  domain  name  is  regarded  as  trade  mark 
infringement regardless of whether an additional term is present. However, this decision would also be 
based on the presumption that the registration of the domain name has not been authorised by the trade 
mark holder, which is not stipulated in the scenario description. 

Experts suggested that these types of scenarios could appear in between 5 and 10 % of total cases. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #3: FORMER BUSINESS PARTNER 

Example: A party registers a domain incorporating a former partner’s name without the  consent of that 
former partner. 

Ruling in favour of 
respondent in given scenario 

Ruling in favour of 
complainant in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific 
variables within scenario 

Outside scope of DRS 

Key Factors 

• Panellists assume that permission had not been granted (either explicitly or implied). 
• Panel will consider whether domain name is identical to former partner’s name; if additional (typically critical) words (e.g. 
‘sucks’) are employed then respondent could prevail. 

UDRP 

.auDRP 

.DK 

euADR 

.ITADR 

.UKADR 

CNDRP 

JP-DRP 

usDRP 

.NLADR 

NOTES 

Panellists tend to consider a former business partner to be a competitor in the context of this scenario. 
Therefore, if the former partner’s name is being used without adornment to derive commercial advantage 
virtually all decisions will likely be against the domain holder on the basis that the domain name has been 
registered and is being used to disrupt the business of the former partner. 

One of the key factors to consider is whether the domain holder has used the domain name without the 
consent  of  the former  business  partner.  On  the  basis  of  this  point  being  explicitly  clear in  the  scenario 
description (i.e. no permission), panellists were unanimous in their opinions that decisions would favour 
the complainant. 

However, panellists may reject the complaint, if the complainant business partner initially gave express 
consent for use of the domain name (e.g. via a partnership agreement), but later rescinded consent due 
to  a  business  or  personal  dispute.  Another  situation  in  which  a  domain  holder  might  prevail  would  be 
when the complainant business partner demonstrates its implied consent to the use of the domain name 
by actively participating in the domain holder’s business that involved the domain name or by failing to 
raise its concerns for an extended period of time despite knowledge of its use. The panel could also rule 
in  favour  of  the  respondent  if  the  domain  name  combined  the  former  partner’s  name  with  a  modifier 
making clear the nature of the use (e.g. appending ‘sucks’ or something similar to signal that there was a 
dispute between the parties). 

Experts were generally in agreement that these types of cases comprise less than 5 % of total cases. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #4: TRIBUTE SITE 

Example: A fan site domain that is not owned or operated by the person the site refers to. 

Ruling in favour of 
respondent in given scenario 

Ruling in favour of 
complainant in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific 
variables within scenario 

Outside scope of DRS 

Key Factors 

• Domain name must not be identical to trade mark. 
• Site must be active and genuinely non-commercial and generally found to be operating in good faith. 

UDRP 

.auDRP 

.DK 

 euADR 

.ITADR 

.UKADR 

CNDRP 

JP-DRP 

usDRP 

.NLADR 

NOTES 

Legitimate fan site cases will typically be ruled in favour of the respondent, but only on the basis that the 
site  is  active,  genuinely  non-commercial  and  the  domain  name  is  clearly  not  identical  to  the 
complainant’s  trade  mark,  that  is,  where  it  includes  an  additional  term  (e.g.  <celebrity-fan.tld>).  If 
commercial activity beyond that normally associated with a bona fide fan site takes place, the registration 
may  be  considered  abusive.  Panellists  assumed  that  in  this  scenario,  the  fan  site  complies  with  these 
criteria.  However,  even  for  a  genuine  non-commercial117 fan  site,  panels  have  tended  to  find  that  a 
general right to operate a fan site does not necessarily extend to a domain name that is identical to the 
complainant’s trade mark (i.e. <trademark.tld>). 

Experts were generally in agreement that these types of cases comprise less than 5 % of total cases. 

117 A fair amount of discretion is employed by panellists in determining ‘non-commercial’ usage. Generally, panellists 
will look to evidence that suggests that the site is primarily intended for commercial gain such as commercial or pay 
per  click  links  or  references  to  a  respondent’s  business,  or  that  the  ‘fan  site’  is  in  reality  a  pretext  for commercial 
gain. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #5: CRITICISM SITE 

Example: An organisation registers a website that is used to criticise a competing brand. 

Ruling in favour of 
respondent in given scenario 

Ruling in favour of complainant 
in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific 
variables within scenario 

Outside scope of DRS 

Key Factors 

• While criticism sites are generally allowed provided that the domain name is not identical to a trade mark and the site must 
be active and genuinely non-commercial, the fact that the site is run by a competitor will lead panels to rule in favour of the 
complainant. 

UDRP 

.auDRP 

.DK 

 euADR 

.ITADR 

.UKADR 

CNDRP 

JP-DRP 

usDRP 

.NLADR 

NOTES 

Consistent with the consensus for Scenario #4 (fan site), panellists will generally allow criticism sites on 
the basis that the site is active, genuinely non-commercial and the domain name is not identical to the 
complainant’s trade mark, but includes an additional term (e.g. <[trademark]sucks.tld>). However, since 
the scenario description states the website is being run by a competitor, it would fail the non-commercial 
test of the requirement. Panellists in this scenario are likely to rule in favour of the complainant in all of 
the DRPs. 

Experts were generally in agreement that these types of cases comprise less than 5 % of total cases. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #6: GENERIC TERM 

Example: A domain is registered using a term that is generic in some countries, but not in others. 

Ruling in favour of 
respondent in given scenario 

Ruling in favour of 
complainant in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific 
variables within scenario 

Outside scope of DRS 

Key Factors 

UDRP 

.auDRP 

.DK 

 euADR 

.ITADR 

.UKADR 

CNDRP 

JP-DRP 

usDRP 

.NLADR 

NOTES 

• Usage of term must be in its generic sense and not targeting a third-party trade mark (in the local language, if relevant) for 
ruling in favour of respondent. 
• If complainant’s trade mark is famous, a panel may consider that the respondent is targeting the mark regardless of 
whether its wording is generic in a particular country or language. However, if the confusion is likely to be very limited, a 
panel might conclude that it would be unjust to deprive the respondent of the domain name. 

• Generic terms do not adequately distinguish a domain from a trade mark. 

Panellists generally concluded that decisions in this scenario will depend on case-specific variables that 
are not stipulated in the scenario description. For example, while a domain name based on its dictionary 
meaning could be allowed if genuinely used in connection with the dictionary definition and not to trade 
off third-party trade mark rights, the status and fame of the complainant’s trade mark would have to be 
taken into account. In this regard, if the complainant’s trade mark is famous, a panel may consider that 
the respondent is targeting the mark regardless of whether its wording is generic in a particular country or 
language118. However, if the confusion is considered to be unlikely, a panel might conclude that it would 
be unjust to deprive the respondent of the domain name. 

For  example,  a  hypothetical  respondent  may  have  a  legitimate  interest  in  the  domain  name 
<orange.com> if it uses the domain name for a website providing information about the fruit or the colour 
orange. However, the same respondent might not have a legitimate interest in the domain name if the 
corresponding website was aimed at goods or services in the field of telecommunications119. 

Generally, the actual use of the domain will be a decisive factor. If the content of the website suggests a 
connection  to  the  trade  mark  owner  or  it  takes  unfair  advantage  of  the  trade  mark  (for  example,  if  the 
website contains sponsored links corresponding to the complainant’s trade mark or ads of competitors), 

118  See, 
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2013/d2013-0741.html,  where 
understood to mean ‘jewelry’ in German (last visited in November 2018). 
119

for  example,  Swarovski  Aktiengesellschaft  v  yuefang  wu  WIPO  Case  No D2013-0741  at 
‘schmuck’  was 

term 

the 

broader 

explanation 

given 

in 

the 

WIPO 

Overview 3.0 

at 

 See 

the 

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item210 (last visited in November 2018). 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

the panel will likely rule in favour of the complainant. Likewise, the panel will likely rule in favour of the 
complainant if the claimed generic use is not credible (e.g. dunkin.menu for a series of basketball classes 
teaching a ‘menu’ of techniques for ‘dunking’ the ball)120. Further, where a term is considered generic in 
one  country  but  not  in  the  complainant’s  country,  the  website  content  or  other  activities  of  a  domain 
holder  that  clearly  target  the  complainant’s  customers  in  the  second  country  could  be  viewed  as 
exhibiting bad faith. 

While  all  panellists  highlighted  these  case  variables  as  important  facts  to  establish  before  making  a 
decision, the usDRP will tend to rule in favour of the complainant regardless of whether the site is being 
used  in  its  generic  sense  on  the  basis  that  the  complainant  owns  a  trade  mark  that  the  respondent  is 
using  in  its  domain  name  without  any  additional  terms.  This  perhaps  reflects  a  slightly  different 
interpretation of the scenario by the usDRP panellist but highlights an important deviation in the approach 
from the other DRPs. 

Experts were generally in agreement that these types of cases comprise less than 5 % of total cases. 

120 This is a fictitious example. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #7: NON-IDENTICAL TERM 

Example: A domain that is registered that contains an intentional minor misspelling of a well-known brand 
name as a means of selling competing products. 

Ruling in favour of 
respondent in given scenario 

Ruling in favour of 
complainant in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific 
variables within scenario 

Outside scope of DRS 

Key Factors 

• Domain names that consist of a common, an obvious, or an intentional misspelling of a well-known brand name are most 
likely considered to be registered and used in bad faith. 

UDRP 

.auDRP 

.DK 

 euADR 

.ITADR 

.UKADR 

CNDRP 

JP-DRP 

usDRP 

.NLADR 

NOTES 

In this scenario, all panellists will tend to rule in favour of the complainant on the basis that they would 
likely  consider  the  intentional  misspelling  as  evidence  that  the  domain  holder  was  aware  of  the  third 
party’s rights, and the selling of competing goods as being bad faith use. 

The  scenario  describes  what  the  panellists  refer  to  as  a  case  of  ‘typosquatting’;  that  is,  to  register  a 
domain  name  that  contains  a  typographical error of  a  well-known  trade mark  or other  protected  name. 
Such domains are obviously confusingly similar to the mark or protected name and almost self-evidently 
likely to be used in bad faith. The function of a domain (e.g. pay-per-click, phishing, competitive product 
website) may further support a finding of bad faith and support a decision against the domain holder. 

Panellists  will  typically  employ  a  side-by-side  comparison  of  the  domain  name  and  the  textual 
components of the relevant trade mark to assess whether the mark is recognisable within the disputed 
domain name. 

Experts were generally in agreement that these types of cases do appear relatively frequently and could 
comprise between 5 and 10 % of total cases. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #8: PERSONAL NAME 

Example: A domain name that relates to the owner’s surname, that coincides with a trade mark. 

Ruling in favour of 
respondent in given scenario 

Ruling in favour of 
complainant in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific 
variables within scenario 

Outside scope of DRS 

Key Factors 

• First come, first served principle. 

UDRP 

.auDRP 

.DK 

 euADR 

.ITADR 

.UKADR 

CNDRP 

JP-DRP 

usDRP 

.NLADR 

NOTES 

The fact that the domain name reflects the domain owner’s name will typically lead panellists to conclude 
that he or she has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, provided that the site is not used to 
capitalise on the reputation of the corresponding trade mark. 

Most of the DRPs regard surnames as relevant rights even where that name is neither a registered trade 
mark nor an unregistered trade mark. In the UDRP terms, one of the codified defences is whether the 
respondent  is  ‘commonly  known  by’  the  domain  name121.  Regardless,  registering  a  domain  name  that 
relates to the owner’s surname and coincides with a trade mark but where there is no bad faith use is 
subject to the first come, first served principle. 

Experts were generally in agreement that these types of cases are rare. 

121 Specifically, the UDRP paragraph 4(c)(ii) states ‘you (as an individual, business, or other organisation) have been 
commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trade mark or service mark rights’. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #9: CITY, COUNTY OR COUNTRY NAMES 

Example: A domain name that includes country abbreviations combined with new generic TLDs such as 
‘de.travel’ instead of ‘travel.de’. 

Ruling in favour of 
respondent in given scenario 

Ruling in favour of 
complainant in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific 
variables within scenario 

Outside scope of DRS 

UDRP 

.auDRP 

.DK 

 euADR 

.ITADR 

Key Factors 

• First come, first served principle. 

• First come, first served principle. 

• A territory may be protected if registered by responsible entity during ‘sunrise period’ of PPR. 

• First come, first served principle, except for Italian regions, provinces and municipalities (e.g. toscana.it, pisa.it, 
viareggio.lucca.it) that are reserved and cannot be assigned to any registrant. 

.UKADR 

• First come, first served principle. 

CNDRP 

• Country names cannot be registered under the CNNIC. 
• Abbreviations depend on good/bad faith. 

• First come, first served principle. 

• Dutch city or county rulings depend on ‘relevant rights’ according to national law. 
• Other (non-Dutch) names and abbreviations depend on good/bad faith. 

JP-DRP 

usDRP 

.NLADR 

NOTES 

New gTLD-related disputes are managed exclusively through the UDRP. The UDRP experts concluded 
that  seeing  as  the  UDRP  applies  to  trade  mark  rights  and  does  not  contain  specific  provisions  on 
geographical terms as such, such country names or abbreviations combined with new gTLDs would, as a 
starting  point  at  least,  be  available  to  register  and  to  use  in  their  ordinary  geographical  sense.  Panels 
would therefore most likely rule in favour of the respondent based on the first come, first served principle. 
Furthermore, in order to apply the UDRP it is a precondition that the complainant holds trade mark rights, 
even if unregistered. 

Panellists in the other DRPs interpreted the question more broadly as referring to rights of geographical 
terms in general. Panellists in JP-DRP, usDRP, .uk, .auDRP and .dk would tend to rule in favour of the 
respondent in these cases on the basis that it is difficult for an entity affiliated with, or responsible for, a 
geographical area (which has not otherwise obtained a relevant trade mark registration) to demonstrate 
unregistered trade mark rights in that geographical term. The decision would therefore likely be made on 
a first come, first served basis. 

There are some geographic variances to consider in this scenario, however: 

 

euADR  would  defer  to  Regulation  (EC)  No 874/2004  of  28 April  2004,  which  concerns  the 
implementation and functions of the .eu TLD (known as PPR). PPR sets out a so-called ‘sunrise 
period’  for  public  bodies  to  register  the  complete  name  of  the  territory  for  which  they  are 
responsible.  If  the  public  body  did  not  apply  for  the  domain  name  regarding  the  name  of  the 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

territory during this sunrise period, it can no longer rely on the benefits of PPR and has to prove the 
name being protected by national and/or Community law. 

In  Italy,  names  corresponding  to  Italian  regions,  provinces  and  municipalities  (e.g.  toscana.it, 
pisa.it, viareggio.lucca.it) are reserved and cannot be assigned to any registrant. 

The CNNIC in China has also implemented a reservation list, under which names of countries in 
the world are normally not open to the public for registration. For example, ‘france.cn’, cannot be 
registered unless the application is from the relevant authority of the country concerned. 

Dutch  cities  and  counties  (provinces)  can  rely  on  the  protection  granted  for  the  names  of  Dutch 
public legal entities. As a result the municipality, for example, of Rotterdam would be successful as 
a complainant in a dispute related to the domain name <rotterdam.nl>. 

 

 

 

Experts were generally in agreement that these types of cases comprise less than 5 % of total cases. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #10: OFFICIAL WEBSITES (GOVERNMENTS, INSTITUTIONS, NGOs etc.) 

Example: A domain name that incorporates the use of the name of a governmental organisation, where 
there is no official link to that organisation. 

Ruling in favour of 
respondent in given scenario 

Ruling in favour of 
complainant in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific 
variables within scenario 

Outside scope of DRS 

UDRP 

• Ruling depends on the existence of trade mark rights, and whether registration and/or usage is in good or bad faith. 

Key Factors 

.auDRP 

.DK 

• Generally considered to be bad faith. 

 euADR 

.ITADR 

.UKADR 

CNDRP 

• A government organisation may be protected if registered by responsible entity during ‘sunrise period’ of PPR. 

• Ruling depends on whether registration and/or usage is in good or bad faith. 

• Government names generally cannot be registered under the CNNIC. 
• Abbreviations depend on good/bad faith. 

JP-DRP 

• Practically impossible for unofficial organisations to obtain official domains. 

usDRP 

• Ruling depends on whether registration and/or usage is in good or bad faith. 

.NLADR 

• Dutch city or county rulings depend on ‘relevant rights’ according to national law. 
• Other (non-Dutch) names and abbreviations depend on good/bad faith. 

NOTES 

Panellists  agreed  that  more  context  was  required  in  the  scenario  description  to  provide  a  definitive 
assessment  of  this  scenario.  However,  it  was  widely  assumed  that  a  government  entity  bringing  a 
complaint of this nature will likely satisfy the requirement for demonstrating (possibly unregistered) rights 
(as defined in the Rules and Procedure) in the invoked name. However, even where such rights exist, the 
registrant may prevail if the disputed domain name is used in the ordinary (dictionary) sense of the term, 
or  less  often,  for  a  criticism  site  (or  indeed  a  fan  site)  provided  that  the  conditions  for  such  sites  as 
described above in Scenario #4 and #5 are met. 

Once  rights  have  been  established,  panellists  will  likely  rule  in  favour  of  the  complainant  if  both  the 
registration and use of the domain is in bad faith, such as if the registrant uses as a phishing scam, or if 
the registrant is using the domain name for commercial purposes. 

Specific variances worth noting are listed here. 

 

Under  JP-DRP,  it  is  understood  that  this  type  of  case  would  never  occur  because  Japanese 
registrars  will  filter  the  registrations  and  request  the  necessary  documents  from  government 
authorities  or  agencies  under  the  Japanese  authority’s  jurisdiction,  or  government-affiliated 
corporations  or  any  other  organisations.  Therefore,  it  is  practically  impossible  for  unofficial 
organisations to obtain official domains. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 

 

 

euADR  panellists  would  defer  to  Regulation  (EC)  No 874/2004  of  28 April  2004,  which  concerns 
the  implementation  and  functions  of  the  .eu  TLD  (known  as  PPR).  PPR  sets  out  a  so-called 
‘sunrise period’ for public bodies to register the complete name of the organisational body for which 
they are responsible. If the public body did not apply for the domain name regarding the name of 
the organisation during this sunrise period, it can no longer rely on the benefits of PPR and has to 
prove the name being protected by national and/or Community law. 

The CNNIC has a  reservation list,  under  which  names  of  countries in  the  world are  normally  not 
open  to  the  public  for  registration.  For  example,  ‘france.cn’,  cannot  be  registered  unless  the 
application is from the relevant authority of the country concerned. 

Dutch cities and counties (provinces) could rely on the protection granted for the names of Dutch 
public legal entities. As a result, for example the municipality of Rotterdam would be successful as 
a complainant in a dispute related to the domain name <rotterdam.nl>. 

Experts were generally in agreement that these types of cases comprise less than 5 % of total cases. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SCENARIO #11: SITES THAT INFRINGE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS SUCH AS 
TRADE  MARKS  AND  COPYRIGHTS,  OR  THROUGH  WHICH  ITEMS  THAT  INFRINGE 
INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY  RIGHTS,  SUCH  AS  TRADE  MARKS  OR  COPYRIGHTS, 
ARE OFFERED FOR SALE 

Example:  A  domain  that  does  not  infringe  any  trade  mark  or  copyrights  in the  domain  name  itself,  but 
items offered for sale through the website do. 

Ruling in favour of 
respondent in given scenario 

Ruling in favour of 
complainant in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific 
variables within scenario 

Outside scope of dispute 
resolution procedure 

UDRP 

• Outside the scope of the dispute resolution procedure. 

Key Factors 

.auDRP 

.DK 

• Except in situations where the generic term that is reflected in the disputed domain name is unambiguously associated with 
the complainant. 

 euADR 

• Outside the scope of the dispute resolution procedure. 

.ITADR 

.UKADR 

CNDRP 

JP-DRP 

usDRP 

.NLADR 

NOTES 

In  a  situation  where  the  domain  name  itself  does  not  contain  any  trade  mark,  copyright,  or  other 
protected name owned by the complainant, a panellist will likely find that the dispute is outside the scope 
of the DRP and refer the complainant to the civil courts where the content of the website itself may be 
considered for intellectual property infringement. 

The exception would be the Danish Domain Board. Although the Board will in most cases rule in favour 
of  the  respondent,  the  weighing  of  interests  between  the  registrant  and  the  complainant  may  in  rare 
circumstances fall to the advantage of the complainant. For instance, if sneakersonsale.dk is registered 
and used by a commercial entity for a website on which it sells counterfeit sneakers of a particular brand, 
then  the  brand  owner  may  be  considered  to  have  a  legitimate  interest  in  getting  the  domain  name 
transferred  that  substantially  exceeds  the  interests  of  the  registrant  in  keeping  the  domain  name, 
provided that it can be demonstrated that the term ‘sneakers on sale’ is unambiguously associated with 
the  complaining  brand  owner.  At  present,  the  Board  has  not  decided  in  cases  exactly  like  the  one 
described,  but  has  decided  a  number  of  other  cases  dealing  with  the  weighing  of  interests  in  generic 
domain  names,  some  of  which  have  been  transferred  to  the  complainant.  Panellists  had  never  come 
across a case like this before. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE SCENARIO COMPARISONS 

Ruling in favour of respondent in given scenario  Ruling in favour of complainant in given scenario 

Rulings dependent on specific variables within scenario  Outside scope of dispute resolution procedure 

#1 

#2 

#3 

#4 

#5 

#6 

#7 

#8 

#9 

#10 

UDRP 

•  If  registration  is  in  good 
faith,  ruling  in  favour  of 
respondent 

Only if ‘Oki 
Data test’ 
factors are met 

•  Subsequent  use  in  bad 
faith is sufficient 

• Interpreted as 
trade mark 
infringement 

Only if ‘Oki 
Data test’ 
factors are met 

• Same as UDRP 

.auDRP 

.DK 

 euADR 

.ITADR 

.UKADR 

CNDRP 

JP-DRP 

usDRP 

• Subsequent use in bad 
faith is sufficient to rule in 
favour of the complainant 

.NLADR 

If 
permission 
has not 
been 
granted by 
the former 
business 
partner 

If domain 
name is not 
identical to 
trade mark 

Criticism by 
competing 
brand is an 
attempt to 
use the 
disputed 
domain name 
to disrupt the 
business of 
that brand 

Ruling depends on 
whether registration 
and/or usage is in good 
or bad faith: Usage of 
term must be in its 
generic sense and not 
targeting the third party 
trade mark (in the local 
language if relevant) 

Domain 
names that 
consist of a 
common, an 
obvious, or an 
intentional 
misspelling of 
a well-known 
trade mark are 
confusingly 
similar to the 
mark and 
therefore in 
bad faith 

Generic terms do not 
adequately distinguish 
domain from a mark 

Same as above 

Ruling depends on whether registration 
and/or usage is in good or bad faith 

First come, first served principle 

Considered to be bad domain practice 

• A territory may be protected if 
registered by responsible entity during 
‘sunrise period’ of PPR 

• Gov. org. may be protected if 
registered by responsible entity during 
‘sunrise period’ of PPR 

First 
come, first 
served 
principle 

• First come, first served principle, 
except for Italian regions, provinces and 
municipalities that are reserved and 
cannot be assigned to any registrant 

First come, first served principle 

Country names cannot be registered 
under the CNNIC. Abbreviations depend 
on good/bad faith. 

Ruling depends on whether registration 
and/or usage is in good or bad faith 

First come, first served principle 

Practically impossible for unofficial 
organisations to obtain official domains 

Ruling depends on whether registration 
and/or usage is in good or bad faith 

Depends on ‘relevant rights’ of Dutch 
city or county. Other names depend on 
good/bad faith. 

Depends on whether registration and/or 
usage is in good or bad faith 

#11 

Outside 
scope of 
dispute 
resolution 
procedure 

If domain 
name is 
associated 
with the 
registrant 

Outside 
scope of 
dispute 
resolution 
procedure 

Scenario #1: An initial fan page that over time comes to sell competing products. 
Scenario #2: An importer of a product registers a ccTLD domain with the same name as the manufacturer’s global website. 
Scenario #3: A party registers a domain incorporating a former partner’s name without the consent of that former partner. 
Scenario #4: A fan site domain that is not owned or operated by the person the site refers to. 
Scenario #5: An organisation registers a website that is used to criticise a competing brand. 
Scenario #6: A domain is registered using a term that is generic in some countries, but not in others. 
Scenario #7: A domain that is registered that contains an intentional minor misspelling of a well-known brand name as a means of selling competing products. 
Scenario #8: A domain name that relates to the owner’s surname, that coincides with a trade mark. 
Scenario #9: A domain name that includes country abbreviations combined with new gTLDs such as ‘de.travel’ instead of ‘travel.de’. 
Scenario #10: A domain name that incorporates the use of the name of a governmental organisation, where there is no official link to that organisation. 
Scenario #11: A domain that does not infringe any trade mark or copyrights in itself, but items offered for sale through the website do. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

6  SOURCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This  project  recruited  eleven  experts,  including  two  advisors,  to  support  the  analysis  and  provide  first-
hand knowledge of how a panel is likely to rule in the given case scenarios. Their profiles and areas of 
expertise are provided in the table below. 

DOMAIN 

ROLE 

DRP/DRS 

Resolution Institute 

Asian Domain Name Dispute 
Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) 

ADR.EU — CAC 

Modified UDRP 

JP-DRP 

Modified UDRP 

Nominet 

National Arbitration Forum 

.au 

.cn 

.eu 

.it 

.jp 

.nl 

.uk 

.us 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

DRP-specific adviser 

DRP-specific adviser 

DRP-specific adviser 

DRP-specific adviser 

DRP-specific adviser 

DRP-specific adviser 

DRP-specific adviser 

DRP-specific adviser 

DRP-specific adviser 

UDPR/Danish Domain Name Board 

.dk, .com, .org, etc. and various 
ccTLDs 

10  UDRP 

.com, .org, etc. and various ccTLDs  DRP-specific adviser 

11  UDRP/nzDRP 

.com, .org, etc. and various ccTLDs  DRP-specific adviser 

A  number  of  secondary  sources  have  also  been  consulted  during  this  analysis,  which  have  been 
referenced in the footnotes on each page. Provided below is a summary chart of the websites consulted 
for each DRP. 

# 

1 

gTLD/ 
ccTLD 

All 
gTLDs 
adopting 
UDRP 

DRP 

WEBSITES AND PUBLICATIONS 

UDRP 

Policy — https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en 

Rules — https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en 

WIPO overview of WIPO panel views on selected UDRP questions, third edition — 
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0 

WIPO domain name disputes website — http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/ 

2 

.AU 

.AUDRP  Policy — https://www.auda.org.au/policies/index-of-published-policies/2016/2016-01/ 

Overview — https://www.auda.org.au/policies/audrp/audrp-overview/ 

3 

.DK 

Danish 
Domain 
Name 
Board 

Rules — https://www.domaeneklager.dk/en/my-dk 

Annual Report — https://www.domaeneklager.dk/en/node/92 

4 

.EU 

ADR 

EU ADR Rules — http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/eu/index.html 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Overview — http://eu.adr.eu/html/en/handbook_final_for_publication.pdf 

5 

.IT 

Modified 
UDRP 

Regulations — https://www.nic.it/en/docs/dispute-resolution-cctld-it-regulations-version-2-1 

Guidelines — https://www.nic.it/en/docs/dispute-resolution-cctld-it-guidelines-version-3-0 

6 

.UK 

NOMINET 
DRS 

DRS policy — https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/17150434/final-proposed-DRS-policy.pdf 

Overview — https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/20161122/expert-overview.pdf 

7 

.CN 

CNDRP  Rules — http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/cn/cn164en.pdf 

8 

9 

.JP 

JP-DRP  Rules — https://www.nic.ad.jp/en/drp/whatis-jpdrp.html 

.US 

.USDRP  Policy — https://www.about.us/policies/ustld-dispute-resolution-policy 

10 

.NL 

Modified 
UDRP 

Rules —  
https://www.sidn.nl/downloads/procedures/Dispute+Resolution+Regulations+for+nl+Domain+
Names.pdf 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

7  GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVERSIONS 

ABBREVIATION 

DESCRIPTION 

2LD 

AAA 

ACDR 

ACN 

Second level domain 

American Arbitration Association 

Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution 

Australia Company Number 

ADNDRC 

Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre 

ADR 

ASIC 

.AUDA 

.AUDRP 

CCTLD 

CAC 

.CNDRP 

CIETAC 

CNDRP 

CNNIC 

DIFO 

DRP 

DRS 

DRSP 

GTLD 

HKIAC 

IAMA 

ICANN 

ITADR 

JIPAC 

Alternative Dispute Resolution — utilised as a generic term for domains not utilising 
the UDRP (please also refer to DRP and DRS) 

Australia Securities and Investments Commission 

.au Domain Administration 

Dispute Resolution Policy utilised by .au domain 

country code Top-Level Domain 

Czech Arbitration Court 

Dispute Resolution Policy utilised by .cn domain 

China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission 

Dispute Resolution Policy utilised by .cn domain 

China Internet Network Information Center 

Danish Internet Forum 

Dispute  Resolution  Policy  —  utilised  as  a  generic  term  for  all  domain  dispute 
resolution systems (also referred to as DRS and ADR) 

Dispute Resolution System — the Nominet dispute resolution system 

Dispute Resolution Service Provider 

generic Top-Level Domain 

Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre 

The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia 

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 

Italian Dispute Resolution Service Providers 

Japanese Intellectual Property Arbitration Center 

JP-DRP 

Dispute Resolution Policy utilised by .jp domain 

NAF 

PRSD 

SIDN 

STLD 

TLD 

National Arbitration Forum 

Prestatori del Servizio di Risoluzione delle Dispute 

Stichting  Internet  Domeinregistratie  Nederland  (Foundation  for  Internet  Domain 
Registration Netherlands) 

Sponsored top-level domain 

Top-level domain 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

UDRP 

USDRP 

WIPO 

TERM 

BAD FAITH 

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy  — a process first established by 
the  World  Intellectual  Property  Organization  (WIPO)  and  adopted  by  the  Internet 
Corporation  for  Assigned  Names  and  Numbers  (ICANN)  for  the  resolution  of 
disputes regarding the registration of internet domain names 

Dispute Resolution Policy utilised by .us domain 

World Intellectual Property Organization 

DESCRIPTION 

Broadly  understood  to  occur  when  a  respondent  takes  unfair  advantage  of  or 
otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. 

COMPLAINANT 

The party filing a complaint against a respondent of a domain name. 

PANEL 

REGISTRAR 

REGISTRANT 

REGISTRY 
OPERATOR 

An  administrative  panel  appointed  by  a  DRP  to  decide  a  complaint  concerning  a 
domain-name  registration.  A  panellist means  an  individual  appointed  by  a  DRP  to 
be a member of a panel. 

The  entity  with  which  the  respondent  has  registered  a  domain  name  that  is  the 
subject of a complaint. Registrars are normally licensed by the registry operator. 

Someone  who  has  registered  a  domain  name  and  agreed  to  the  UDRP  in  the 
registration agreement. 

The  role  of  registry  operators  within  the  internet  ecosystem  is  to  keep  the  master 
database  of  all  domain  names  registered  in  the  TLD  under  their  registry  and 
generate  the  ‘zone  file’  that  allows  computers  to  route  internet  traffic  to  and  from 
TLDs anywhere in the world. 

RESPONDENT 

Another  term  used  for  a  registrant;  used  to  refer  to  the  party  that  is  expected  to 
respond to a complaint made via the UDRP or other dispute resolution framework. 

SUPPLEMENTAL 
RULES 

Rules  adopted  by  a  provider  administering  a  proceeding  to  supplement  the  main 
DRP  rules.  Supplemental  rules  cannot  be  inconsistent  with  the  policy  itself  and 
cover such topics as fees, word and page limits and guidelines, file size and format 
modalities, the means for communicating with the provider and the panel, and the 
form of cover sheets122. 

CURRENCY 

EXCHANGE RATE (CONSULTED JUNE 2018) 

USD ($) 

AUS ($) 

DKK (KR.) 

‎GBP (£) 

CNY (¥) 

EUR 1.16 

EUR 1.57 

EUR 7.46 

EUR 0.88 

EUR 7.52 

JPY (¥) 
Currencies consulted at https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/ 

EUR 127.55 

122 All of the DRP providers consulted for this study publish supplemental rules on their websites. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 
FOR DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

ISBN 978-92-9156-261-9 doi: 10.2814/294649 TB-06-18-312-EN-N  

© European Union Intellectual Property Office, 2018 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged 

COMPARATIVE  CASE  STUDY 
ON ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION 
SYSTEMS  FOR  DOMAIN  NAME 
DISPUTES 

60