The sugalicious way of life

Domain name conflicts affecting business are on the rise.

Fortunately, victims of domain name abuse have an effective tool to fight cybersquatting. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) adopted in 1999 by the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the international body responsible for domain name governance, has been used to address thousands of domain name conflicts.

As an ICANN UDRP Panelist with over 125 reported decisions, I have read many submissions, some very good, many bad.

Here are six recommendations for UDRP submissions.

1. The Complaint (or Answer) should be a brief. This is your only chance to argue your position. Treat it like a memorandum in support of a motion for preliminary injunction or summary judgment by presenting your case as an advocate. Mere notice pleading allowed in our federal system is not effective for the circumstances.

2. The Pleading should be brief. Although the provider's limitations on length are largely ignored and exceeded, as a Panelist I urge you to remember that effective legal writing is brief and to the point.

3. The Pleadings should follow the Policy. Follow the elements of the Policy in stating your position. Remember that the Panel must address each of these issues. Make it easy for the Panel to decide in your favor by organizing your argument around each element of the claim or defense.

4. Support your position with proof. You need more than bald allegations to prove rights and bad faith, and you will find an increasing number of cases in which complainants are called upon to make additional submissions or lose their claim due to lack of proof. Strong submissions present evidence by way of exhibits and short affidavits. But don't merely shovel in piles of documents. Remember point 2.

5. Make good use of supporting authority. Give cases to support your argument and show why the cases are relevant. Avoid merely citing cases. There have been over 10,000 reported UDRP decisions. Don't assume the Panel knows the result and reasoning of each case you cite. Help the Panel by providing at least a parenthetical on the cases you cite.

6. Recognize the limits of the Policy. The Policy is designed to address cases of cybersquatting involving protectable trademarks. It is not intended for contract disputes, garden variety infringement cases, defamation claims, or personal names that are not entitled to commercial protection. Adverse decisions are often the result of claims that obviously stretch beyond the scope of the Policy. Matters outside the scope of the Policy are better directed to appropriate civil courts.

Since 1999, we have used the UDRP to help our clients recover hundreds of domain names from cybersquatters at a fraction of the cost of ordinary civil litigation. Used properly, the UDRP is an effective tool to aid businesses protect their interests in cyberspace.