Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Contenido disponible solo en los siguientes idiomas
Submissions for this Proceeding
Policy Status Report: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
View this Proceeding
Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding
To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.
Minor adjustments to UDRP intake forms should require that Complainants attest that their trademark rights arose prior to the creation date of the domain name in dispute, otherwise their filing of a complaint should be refused.
There's a lack of due process of law for respondents to analyze a complaint, do research, gather evidence, prepare a response, prepare an affidavit, and submit their response, because 20 days is not enough time fo...
Vox Populi supports the following concerns, which have been raised by members of the community for over a decade and are more fully described in the UDRP Policy Status Report (2022) and its predecessor, ICANN’s Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP (2011):
· The UDRP Rules should address current inequities including, “forum shopping,…panel appointment rules, such as rotating pan...
The RrSG position in the attached comment is that the UDRP generally does not require a PDP at this time. There are no serious issues identified in the Policy Status Report, and the RrSG is aware of significant backlog in implementing previously adopted policy and recommendations, as well as significant volunteer fatigue in the community. The UDRP has worked well in many tens of thousands of UDRPs, so it is not necessary to review it now. Howe...
IAC says the present UDRP is grossly biased in favor of trademark holders. The domain name holders are subjected to RDNH akin to the Jews of Europe being eliminated in Auschwitz gas chambers. IAC demands a DENAZIFICATION of ICANN and the UDRP along with its NAZI collaborators like WIPO. It seems WIPO selects their panelists for their stupidity and for strict obedience to follow WIPO's self created gas chamber operation rules. It is no coincide...
UDRP mostly works but could use some refining. Many innocent domain owners are forced to defend cases that should not be brought. Of the cases I've read, many of the "bad" cases are situations in which the Complainant's trademark postdates the domain registrant's acquisition of the domain name. Thus, they did not register the domain to target the domain owner. I recommend adding a checkbox on UDRP filings that states, "My trademark rights pred...
Forum seeks to clarify a few factual inaccuracies regarding references to Forum specifically.
Please find our comments attached as a PDF to this email.
At the beginning of March 2022, ICANN published the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Status Report (UDRP Report), seeking input from the community.
We welcome the work of ICANN on releasing the document in line with Workstream 2 Recommendations on ICANN Transparency. Our analysis shows
that, primarily, the document contains several positiv...
URLs and the importance to our Society should have a level playing field with Risk Reward Alignements established.
My Comments on the udrp-
1 ) Compensation must be given to domain registrant when a reverse domain name hijacking by the complainant is proved. Penalty must be levied upon the complainant in this case.
2 ) Defendant must be given an option of rejecting the panelist / approving the panelist when a single member panelist is alloted fo the udrp proceeding.
3 ) All the Indian udrp cases where complainant and...
From the Italian side, we have the following remarks.
In the Policy Status Report there is no mention of the protection of Geographical Indications (GIs), being GIs so far excluded from the UDRP. The Italian delegation is of the opinion that ICANN should urgently consider to revise the process of attribution of new gTLDs in line with the international accepted rules on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), with a view to consider GIs as ...
Please see attachment.
The BC continues to be a strong supporter of the UDRP as a mechanism to mitigate online abuse. The Status Report has done a good job of laying out the general UDRP framework and environment, though it is not intended to serve as a comprehensive repository for all relevant data and viewpoints.
It is imperative that stakeholders do not unnecessarily open up a can of worms with the UDRP through destabilizing changes; rather, they should ta...
Our key comments and suggestions, discussed in detail in the attached note, are summarized below –
1. Proving the domain registrant’s bad faith should not be a mandatory requirement for a complaint under the UDRP.
2. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the UDRP should be revised to better safeguard the trademark owners’ rights.
The UDRP has a proven track record in mitigating consumer confusion and harm, curbing abusive domain name registration and use, and contributing to the overall security and stability of the global DNS. The ability to address cybersquatting and related abuses in gTLDs in lieu of going to court has been invaluable, leading to significant savings in resources for brand owners, registries and registrars (and frankly, registrants) who otherwis...
UNIFAB - Union Des Fabricants is the French association for the promotion and protection of intellectual property rights. The association is today composed of around 200 members (companies, professional federtations) representing very diverse sectors of activity as well as different sizes.
UNIFAB thanks the ICANN community for the opportunity given to highlight some topics of interest regarding the UDRP policy status report.
An effective, fair, and legitimate UDRP must balance both protection of intellectual property rights and the protection of domain name registrant rights.
Our members include many owners of valuable generic domain names who have been the victim of meritless Complaints and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking attempts. Our members also include many of the leading defenders of domain name registrants who have collectively defended against hundreds...
The UDRP is not perfect, but it remains the best tool for resolving disputes between trademarks and domain names.
Fairness of the UDRP – non-recognition of geographical indications (GIs) rights
Geographical indications (GI) are intellectual property rights recognized and protected by international treaties.
Bad-faith domain names registrations containing or consisting of GIs names can infringe GI rights. Better protection of GIs on the internet is one of the main objectives of the new EU proposal for a Regulation on European Union geographica...
Federdoc believes that the process of attribution of new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) – as well as the system of traditional gTLDs and of country code ccTLDs should be fully compatible with the internationally accepted rules on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and, therefore, take into account GIs as prior rights deserving protection in case of irregular use on the Internet Domain Names Environment.
Moreover we believe that ...
While the UDRP has proved to be an effective administrative procedure for trademark holders to fight bad faith registrations, it is unfair as a curative mechanism because the rights and interests of holders of another relevant category of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) which can be abused in the domain name environment – Geographical Indications – are ignored.
GIs represent an internationally accepted category of IPRs, pr...