Failing to respond to a UDRP?

[MerlinK]

Hypothetically:

If someone files a UDPR against the owner of XYZ.com, and even though the claimant may not clearly prove 3 points of bad faith usage, IF the owner fails to make ANY formal response to the UDRP claim, then does the claimant AUTOMATICALLY win? Or is it only if they make 3 points of bad faith usage, and they aren't disputed by a response from the registrant of XYZ.com?

-Merlin

 

[Theo]

I am not 100% certain - but only 90% - that I came across a case, when reading through old UDRP cases (I was bored just like that!) where the respondent did not ...respond at all; however the complainant failed to establish all 3 points and the transfer was denied. You can search at http://udrp.law.cornell.edu/udrp/advsearch.html

 

[jberryhill]

It's not an automatic win for the complainant, but a good many panelists treat it that way.

 

[Dave Zan]

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/search/overview/index.html

4.6 Does the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint (respondent default) automatically result in the complainant being granted the requested remedy?

Consensus view: The respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the complainant. Subject to the principles described in 2.1 above with regard to the second UDRP element, the complainant must establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP. While a panel may draw negative inferences from the respondent’s default, paragraph 4 of the UDRP requires the complainant to support its assertions with actual evidence in order to succeed in a UDRP proceeding.

Relevant decisions:
The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang D2002-1064 <vanguar.com>, Transfer
Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu D2003-0465 <berlitzsucks.com>, Transfer
Brooke Bollea, a.k.a Brooke Hogan v. Robert McGowan D2004-0383 <brookehogan.com>, Denied

 

[Theo]

On the other hand, it appears that Kenyatech's failure to respond to http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0127.html cost them a domain.

What's interesting in this case is that the complainant lost the domain after they failed to renew it!