Opinion ID: 783938
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Nature of the UDRP proceedings

Text: 88 The district court doubly sanctioned the following denial in Cello's answer: It is denied that the arbitral decision was erroneous. It is denied that an actual case or controversy regarding ownership of the domain name `cello.com' exists between the parties because the arbitral award is final and binding. The district court concluded that Cello's denial of an actual case or controversy was not warranted by the evidence because Cello itself brought the action in Virginia, indicating it believed that a dispute between the parties existed; the district court also found that Cello's contention that the arbitration award was final and binding was factually false. Storey, 182 F.Supp.2d at 366-67. 89 The sanctioned statement is actually a single, non-frivolous legal argument. The contention that there is no actual case or controversy between the parties does not necessarily imply that there is no dispute between two parties. Rather, the denial in Cello's answer that there was an actual case or controversy regarding the ownership of the domain name `cello.com' can be read as a short-hand notation for the argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review or supersede the UDRP panel's decision on the merits. We read Cello's characterization of the UDRP panel decision as final and binding as making the same legal point. 90