Arbitration and Mediation Center
ccTLD Database

Note:
This dispute policy is a slightly adapted version of the WIPO Expedited Arbitration Rules. A description of key features of WIPO Expedited Arbitration is available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/index.html.

Note:
Relevant differences between the aeDRP and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

-It is sufficient to prove that either registration or subsequent use of the domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the Complainant to prove both elements.

- Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or otherwise decided by the Panel, the language of the aeDRP procedure shall be English.

Note:
AFGNIC is in the process of reviewing .af ccTLD policies. The draft policies have been posted on the policy page - interested parties are invited to comment

Note:
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center only provides domain name dispute resolution services for the sub-domains .co.ao and .it.ao.

Relevant differences between the procedure for .co.ao and .it.ao and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- Under the procedure for .co.ao and .it.ao, it is sufficient to prove that either registration or use of the domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the Complainant to prove both elements.

Note:
Relevant differences between the auDRP and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- The auDRP applies to domain names that are identical or confusingly similar, not only to a trademark or service mark, but to any 'name' in which the Complainant has rights (auDRP paragraph 4(a)), including the Complainant's company, business or other legal or trading name, as registered with the relevant Australian government authority; or the Complainant's personal name.

- Under the auDRP, it is sufficient to prove that either registration or subsequent use of the domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the Complainant to prove both elements.

- While under the second example of bad faith of the UDRP (UDRP 4(b)(ii)) a pattern of conduct is required in addition to prevention of the trademark or service mark owner from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, under the auDRP no such additional pattern is required.

Note:
Relevant differences between the procedure for .bo and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- The procedure for .bo applies to domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights previously registered or applied for in Bolivia.

- Under the procedure for .bo, it is sufficient to prove that either registration or use of the domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the Complainant to prove both elements.

Note:
Some particular features of the Rules of Procedure:

- By requesting an expert decision, the Claimant submits to the courts of Zurich with regard to any court proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the expert decision.

- The Rules of Procedure combine conciliation with an expert procedure. When receiving a complaint, the dispute resolution provider will appoint a conciliator, who conducts a telephone conference of up to one hour. If the conciliation fails, or if the Respondent fails to participate, the Claimant can request that an expert be appointed to decide the case.

- In order to be granted the remedy under the expert procedure, a Claimant must prove that the registration or use of the domain name constitutes a clear infringement of an intellectual property right under the laws of Switzerland or Liechtenstein.

Note:
Relevant difference between the procedure for .CR and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- Under the procedure for .CR, it is sufficient to prove that either registration or use of the domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the Complainant to prove both elements.

Note:
Relevant differences between the procedure for .DO and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- Under the procedure for .DO, it is sufficient to prove that either registration or use of the domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the Complainant to prove both elements.

Note:
Relevant differences between the procedure for .es and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- Whereas the UDRP is limited to the protection of trademark rights against infringement through bad-faith registration and use of a domain name, under the procedure for .es a Claimant must establish that the registration or use of the domain name constitutes an infringement of rights protected in Spain, which may concern trademarks but may also concern different types of intellectual property or certain other rights (see Rules, article 2, definition of "Derechos Previos" and of "Registro de Nombres de Dominio de Carácter Especulativo o Abusivo").

- No three-member panels are possible.

Note:
- A requesting party may initiate a WIPO procedure instead of or after filing a AFNIC procedure. More details on the different elements of each procedure are available on the Afnic website.

Relevant differences between the WIPO procedure for .fr and .re and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- Whereas the UDRP is limited to the protection of trademark rights against infringement through bad-faith registration and use of a domain name, under the WIPO procedure for .fr and .re a Claimant must establish that the registration or use of the domain name constitutes an infringement of rights protected in France or Community rights, which may concern trademarks or any other types of intellectual property or other rights (see Règlement, article 1, definition of "Atteinte aux droits des tiers" and "Atteinte aux règles de la concurrence").

- No three-member panels are possible.

Note:
The relevant difference between the procedure for .HN and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is the following:

- Under the procedure for .HN, it is sufficient to prove that either registration or use of the domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the Complainant to prove both elements.

Note:
Relevant differences between the ieDRP and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- The ieDRP covers “Protected Identifiers” more generally. Protected Identifiers are defined as trade and service marks, reputable personal names and pseudonyms, geographical indications, which are protected in Ireland.

- Under the ieDRP, it is sufficient to prove that either registration or subsequent use of the domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the Complainant to prove both elements.

- The ieDRP includes the following additional examples of evidence of registration or use in bad faith:

*the likelihood of diluting the reputation of a trade or service mark (paragraph 2.1.5 of the ieDRP).

*the intentional filing of misleading or false information when applying for the domain name registration ( paragraph 2.1.6 of the ieDRP).

Note:
A relevant difference between the IRDRP and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is that it is sufficient to prove that either registration or subsequent use of the domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the Complainant to prove both elements.

Note:
Some particular features of the Rules of Procedure:

- By requesting an expert decision, a Claimant submits to the courts of Zurich with regard to any court proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the expert decision.

- The Rules of Procedure combine conciliation with an expert procedure. When receiving a complaint, the dispute resolution provider will appoint a conciliator, who conducts a telephone conference of up to one hour. If the conciliation fails, or if the Respondent fails to participate, the Claimant can request that an expert be appointed to decide the case.

- In order to be granted the remedy under the expert procedure, a Claimant must prove that the registration or use of the domain name constitutes a clear infringement of an intellectual property right under the laws of Switzerland or Liechtenstein.

Note:
The Sunrise Challenge Period ended on July 7, 2008.

Note:
The Sunrise Challenge Period ended on November 7, 2008.

Note:
Relevant differences between the policy for .mx (LDRP) and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- whereas trademark protection is more limited than under the UDRP, as the LDRP only protects registered trademarks and service marks, there is wider protection than under the UDRP with the inclusion of: "avisos comerciales registrados, denominaciones de origen o reservas de derechos”, in which the complainant has rights

- whereas the UDRP requires the complainant to prove both that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith, under the LDRP it is sufficient to prove that either the registration or subsequent use of the domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith.

Note:
Relevant differences between the procedure for .nl and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- Whereas the UDRP is limited to the protection of trademark rights against infringement through bad faith registration and use of a domain name, the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the Regulations) aim to protect not only trademark rights, but also certain other rights protected in the Netherlands, and furthermore concern the registration or use of the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Regulations, article 2.1).

- No three-member panels are possible.

Note:
Relevant differences between the procedure for .pe and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- The procedure for .pe applies to domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights previously registered or applied for in Peru.

- Under the procedure for .pe, it is sufficient to prove that either registration or use of the domain name by the registrant occurred in bad faith, whereas the UDRP requires the Complainant to prove both elements.

Note:
Relevant differences between the phDRP policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- Under the UDRP 4(c)(iii) a domain name registrant may not claim legitimate rights and interests if the registrant uses the domain "to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue." Such clause does not appear in the phDRP.

- The time period to resort to court proceedings is 30 days under the phDRP as compared to ten (10) days under the UDRP.

- By filing a complaint under the phDRP, a Complainant must submit to the court jurisdiction in the Philippines, or the court jurisdiction at the location of the domain name holder, or submit to both.

Note:
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center does not administer disputes where one or both parties are registered or resident in Poland. Those disputes are administered by the Arbitration Court at the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunication in Warsaw under its Rules or by the Arbitration Court at the Polish Chamber of Commerce under its Rules.

For disputes where both parties are registered or resident outside Poland, the applicable policy is a slightly adapted version of the WIPO Expedited Arbitration Rules. A description of key features of WIPO Expedited Arbitration is available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/index.html.

Note:
PW is the Internet's first and only domain extension devoted to "Communities of Shared Interests". Only Third Level domains can be registered with .PW.

Note:
Relevant differences between the WIPO procedure for .fr and .re and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

- Whereas the UDRP is limited to the protection of trademark rights against infringement through bad-faith registration and use of a domain name, under the WIPO procedure for .fr and .re a Claimant must establish that the registration or use of the domain name constitutes an infringement of rights protected in France or Community rights, which may concern trademarks or any other types of intellectual property or other rights (see Règlement, article 1, definition of “Atteinte aux droits des tiers” and “Atteinte aux règles de la concurrence”).

- No three-member panels are possible.

Note:
Please note that as of March 17, 2010, .RO domain name disputes will be processed under the essentially paperless modifications to the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, as approved on October 30, 2009

Note:
This dispute policy is a slightly adapted version of the WIPO Expedited Arbitration Rules. A description of key features of WIPO Expedited Arbitration is available at http://arbiter.wipo.int/arbitration/index.html.

Note:
Relevant differences between this dispute policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) include the following:

-Bad faith may be found on either registration or subsequent use of the domain name by the registrant, whereas the UDRP requires the Complainant to prove both elements.

-By filing a complaint under this policy, a Complainant must submit to the court jurisdiction of the registry, or the court jurisdiction at the location of the domain name holder, or submit to both.