About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

Overview of ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules

(In Effect as of December 1, 1999)

 

The main elements of the Dispute Policy and the Rules are as follows:

  • A domain name registrant is required to submit to the administrative procedure in its registration agreement, which incorporates the Dispute Policy by reference.
  • The administrative procedure is only available for abusive domain name registrations.
  • Disputes involving the registration and use of a domain name registration that do not satisfy the abusive domain name criteria specified in the Policy may nevertheless be brought before a court or arbitral tribunal.
  • An administrative procedure can only be commenced with an ICANN-accredited Provider. The choice of Provider is made by the complainant, and it is that Provider which will administer the proceedings, except possibly in the case of a consolidation of complaints.
  • In order to invoke the administrative procedure, a complainant is required to agree to jurisdiction either (i) in the judicial district where the principal offices of the registrar are located, or (ii) in the judicial district which includes the domain name holder’s address as shown for the registration of the domain name in the registrar’s WHOIS database at the time of the complaint.
  • Complaints are to be decided by Administrative Panels composed of one or three members. The Rules provide for limited party participation in the panelist appointment process in the event of an election for a three-member Panel by either the complainant or the respondent.
  • The Policy restricts a domain name holder’s ability to transfer a domain name to a third party (other than the complainant) or to change registrars after an administrative proceeding has been commenced.
  • No change may be made to the status of a domain name by a registrar unless (i) authorized by the domain name holder, (ii) ordered by a court or arbitral tribunal of competent jurisdiction, (iii) required by a decision of an Administrative Panel, (iv) pursuant to the terms of the registration agreement, or (v) in accordance with other legal requirements.
  • Absent exceptional circumstances, the decision of an Administrative Panel in respect of a complaint must be forwarded to the parties no later than 52-57 days after the commencement of the administrative proceeding. An Administrative Panel has 14 days following its appointment to confer and to issue its decision, which must be in writing and provide the reasons on which it is based. The Rules reflect the expectation that in-person hearings will only be held in exceptional circumstances.
  • The remedies available to an Administrative Panel are limited to requiring (i) the cancellation of the disputed domain name registration, or (ii) its transfer to the complainant. Where an Administrative Panel finds in favor of the domain name holder, these remedies will be denied.
  • Except where an Administrative Panel decides otherwise, all decisions are to be published in full over the Internet.
  • Even though a domain name registrant is required to submit to the mandatory administrative proceeding, both the domain name registrant and the third party complainant have the option of commencing an action in a court of competent jurisdiction either before the mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after it is concluded.
  • The Policy and the Rules explicitly exclude any participation by a registrar (or registrars, in the case of multiple domain name registrations) in the conduct of the administrative proceedings, other than setting out a registrar’s obligation to implement the decision of an Administrative Panel.
  • An unsuccessful respondent may block the implementation of the Administrative Panel’s decision by submitting official documentation (e.g., copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the accepting court) showing that it has commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a court where the complainant has agreed to or otherwise must submit to jurisdiction.
  • Once the above has happened, the registrar can take no further action to implement the Administrative Panel’s decision until it has received (i) evidence satisfactory to the registrar of a resolution of the matter between the parties, or (ii) evidence satisfactory to the registrar that the lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn, or (iii) a copy of an order from the court determining the rights of the parties as to the disposition of the domain name.
  • In addition to the Rules, each Provider is to issue its own Supplementary Rules addressing such matters as fees, methods of communication and word limits for decisions.
  • Except in respect of deliberate wrongdoing, a panelist or the Administrative Panel, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Center shall not liable to a party, a registrar or ICANN for any act or omission in connection with an Administrative Proceeding