Opinion ID: 783938
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction under the UDRP

Text: 36 Labeling UDRP Paragraph 4(k) a contractual forum selection clause, Cello next argues that the Southern District of New York was not a permissible forum in which to challenge the UDRP award transferring Storey's rights in cello.com. Insofar as Cello argues that the domain-name registrant's agreement to submit to the mandatory administrative proceedings under UDRP Paragraph 4 limits the jurisdictions in which a domain-name registrant can bring a federal suit under § 1114(2)(D)(v), we disagree. 37 Referring to the domain-name registrar, here NSI, as we, Paragraph 4(k) of the UDRP states the following: 38 The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either [the registrant] or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution.... If an Administrative Panel decides that [the registrant's] domain name registration should be canceled or transferred, we will wait ten (10) business days ... after we are informed ... of the Administrative Panel's decision before implementing that decision. We will then implement the decision unless we have received from [the registrant] during that ten (10) business day period official documentation ... that [the registrant has] commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure.... If we receive such documentation within the ten (10) business day period, we will not implement the Administrative Panel's decision .... 39 Cello argues that only the jurisdictions to which it, the complainant, has submitted are permissible jurisdictions for the Instant Action, and that the Southern District of New York is not one of them. 5 This argument, however, ignores the first sentence of Paragraph 4(k), which states that the existence of UDRP proceedings against Storey does not prevent him from seeking independent resolution of the dispute in a court of competent jurisdiction. The jurisdictional restrictions in UDRP Paragraph 4(k) thus address the limitations on the registrar's obligations that arise in response to a lawsuit; they do not the affect jurisdictions in which the complainant may seek an independent resolution from the courts. Only if a domain-name registrant seeks to delay implementation of a UDRP panel's decision is he or she obliged to commence his or her lawsuit against the complainant within the ten-day window and to bring it in a court to whose jurisdiction the complainant has submitted contractually. As the UDRP provides no definition for court of competent jurisdiction as a term of art, we give the term its plain meaning, namely a court that has jurisdiction to hear the claim brought before it. We see no reason why the Southern District of New York is not such a court. 6