Opinion ID: 783938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The UDRP proceedings

Text: 14 Like all domain-name registration agreements, Storey's registration agreement with NSI incorporated the terms of the UDRP, 3 available at http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm, which, in Paragraph 4 (entitled  Mandatory Administrative Proceeding ) required Storey to submit to an administrative proceeding to resolve any so-called cybersquatting disputes — disputes brought by a third party with trademark rights in a mark that is similar to a domain name in order to seek transfer of the domain-name registration. Paragraphs 4(a)-(c) of the UDRP establish the substantive elements that the trademark-rights-holder/complainant must prove to prevail on a cybersquatting claim in a UDRP administrative proceeding: the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark; the registrant 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. 15 On October 10, 2000, Cello Holdings filed a complaint under the UDRP (the UDRP Administrative Proceeding) with eResolution, a dispute resolution agency designated by Storey's agreement with NSI, seeking transfer of the domain name cello.com In a section seeking information on Other Proceedings, the complaint referenced the First Action, noting that Cello Holdings LLC voluntarily dismissed the case last month so as to avail itself of this dispute resolution policy which was not available at the time of the 1997 filing, thereby saving significant time and expense over the continued litigation. The complaint did not refer to the September 25 Letter. 16 Storey filed a response in UDRP Administrative Proceeding, arguing first that the proceeding is barred by the previous discontinuance with prejudice of complainant's identical claims in the First Action by the doctrine of res judicata,  and, in the alternative, that the claim asserted in the UDRP complaint is in any event wholly lacking in merit. 17 On December 21, 2000, a decision was issued in the UDRP Administrative Proceeding, directing that cello.com be transferred to Cello Holdings. Addressing Storey's res judicata defense, the decision noted that Storey's assertions are at variance with this Tribunal's reading of the evidence he submitted and are expressly rejected, and that as [Storey] has made no attempt to enjoin the actions of eResolution or this Tribunal, a claim that jurisdiction is absent or that [Storey] has not consented to participate in these proceedings is likewise unpersuasive.