All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Frontier Compliance: A Communication System Emerging in Cyberspace
Unformatted Document Text:  16 proven by the combination of the fact that “volvo” and “volvoaero” are registered as famous trademarks, the fact that the respondent was not yet using the domain name at the time the complaint was filed, and the absence any apparent “good faith” of the respondent. This kind of decision illustrates that panels switch the burden of proof from the complainant to the respondent, and liberally use the discretion to change the application of the rule that each of the three elements must be proven by the complainant. As a result, the scope of bad faith registration and use of the domain name registrants becomes very broad under the UDRP system. Procedural Rules. Many of the procedural rules also influence the balance of power between the complainants and the respondents. Only the complainant selects the service provider by choosing to file the complainant at the provider, and the respondent does not have any power to change it. There are 4 service providers at present: 11 WIPO, 12 NAF, 13 CPR, 14 and ADNDRC. 15 Each service provider has a list of panelists, and when a complaint is filed, the provider appoints a panelist who will constitute the panel for the proceeding. In principle, one panelist makes a decision, unless either the complainant or the respondent elects a three-member panel. Fees are paid by the complainant, unless the respondent elects for a three-member panel instead of the usual one-member panel. After the respondent is notified that the complaint was filed, the respondent has only 20 days to submit a response to the provider. This has created much burden and difficulty on many respondents, since most domain name registrants have not even been aware of the existence of the UDRP system let alone understand the procedures, whereas complainants have as much time as possible to understand the rules and prepare for filing the complaint. The consequence of this difficulty is reflected in many default cases, in which the respondents failed to submit a response. The problem related to this is compounded as 95% of these default cases are decided in favor of the complainants, and in many cases the respondents are considered to have bad faith only because they failed to submit responses. The language barrier also presented burden on the respondents. The language of proceedings, otherwise agreed by the parties, is the language of the registration agreement. Thus foreign registrants who registered the domain names through registrars that use English in their web sites have even more difficulty in responding within the time frame provided by the UDRP. Although this 11 See note 5. 12 approved effective December 1, 1999 13 approved effective December 23, 1999 14 approved effective May 22, 2000 15 approved effective February 28, 2002

Authors: Woo, Jisuk.
first   previous   Page 16 of 27   next   last



background image
16
proven by the combination of the fact that “volvo” and “volvoaero” are registered as
famous trademarks, the fact that the respondent was not yet using the domain name at
the time the complaint was filed, and the absence any apparent “good faith” of the
respondent. This kind of decision illustrates that panels switch the burden of proof from
the complainant to the respondent, and liberally use the discretion to change the
application of the rule that each of the three elements must be proven by the
complainant. As a result, the scope of bad faith registration and use of the domain name
registrants becomes very broad under the UDRP system.
Procedural Rules. Many of the procedural rules also influence the balance of
power between the complainants and the respondents. Only the complainant selects the
service provider by choosing to file the complainant at the provider, and the respondent
does not have any power to change it. There are 4 service providers at present:
11
WIPO,
12
NAF,
13
CPR,
14
and ADNDRC.
15
Each service provider has a list of panelists,
and when a complaint is filed, the provider appoints a panelist who will constitute the
panel for the proceeding. In principle, one panelist makes a decision, unless either the
complainant or the respondent elects a three-member panel. Fees are paid by the
complainant, unless the respondent elects for a three-member panel instead of the usual
one-member panel.
After the respondent is notified that the complaint was filed, the respondent has
only 20 days to submit a response to the provider. This has created much burden and
difficulty on many respondents, since most domain name registrants have not even been
aware of the existence of the UDRP system let alone understand the procedures,
whereas complainants have as much time as possible to understand the rules and
prepare for filing the complaint. The consequence of this difficulty is reflected in many
default cases, in which the respondents failed to submit a response. The problem related
to this is compounded as 95% of these default cases are decided in favor of the
complainants, and in many cases the respondents are considered to have bad faith only
because they failed to submit responses. The language barrier also presented burden on
the respondents. The language of proceedings, otherwise agreed by the parties, is the
language of the registration agreement. Thus foreign registrants who registered the
domain names through registrars that use English in their web sites have even more
difficulty in responding within the time frame provided by the UDRP. Although this
11
See note 5.
12
approved effective December 1, 1999
13
approved effective December 23, 1999
14
approved effective May 22, 2000
15
approved effective February 28, 2002


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 16 of 27   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.