someone please remind me about WIPO

draqon · Oct 5, 2004

I know that according to WIPO UDRP policy, a person must have registered a domain name in bad faith AND be currently using it in bad faith in order to lose the domain. However, I also know that some panelists have felt that even a domain that was registered in good faith, can be lost by the registrant if they start using it in bad faith (such as happened in nissan.com, I believe).

So my question, according to MOST panelists, must a person have registered a domain bad faith to lose it, or has the enforcement and interpretation of the UDRP policy changed to accomodate those people who regged a name in good faith but are blatantly using it in bad faith?

thanks for any information you can provide.

jberryhill · Oct 6, 2004

When you talk about "MOST" panelists, you have to bear in mind that a lot of decisions are default decisions, since the respondent has not answered the complaint.

If you hold most panelists feet to the fire then, yes, the complainant has to prove that initial registration was done in bad faith.

In at least one thoughtful decision which I can't recall offhand, the panel took the position that a good faith registration followed by bad faith use of some kind is going to generate a certain amount of scrutiny of the circumstances of the initial registration. For example, one could register say, shell-station.com, and spend a few months selling seashells. Then, one could switch over to advertising non-Shell gas stations, and claim, "but I registered the domain name to sell sea shells."

As usual, the outcome is going to be determined by how the panel considers the objective evidence, if any, since the initial "good faith" registration could have been something less than sincere.

Note the specific references to Exhibits filed with the response here:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0839.html

It is possible for a deceptive registrant to concoct a phony business name under which to register a domain name with the intent to deceive a trademark holder or the general public as to the legitimacy of the registrant's claim to the domain name. However, in this case, the Panel finds it most improbable that Respondent has, among other things, formally incorporated under the name "Windsor Software Corporation" (Exhibit D of the Response), entered into a contract with NASDAQ under that name (Exhibit G of the Response), filed under that name with the Greater Washington Board of Trade (Exhibit F of the Response) and paid taxes to the IRS under that name (Exhibit J of the Response) all as a clever decade-long ruse to deceive and extort money from Complainant.