|
|
|
|
|
|
by tgsovlerkhgsel
687 days ago
|
|
|
UDRP is meant to address obvious, intentional, malicious domain squatting, where someone registers a domain with your trademark and then extorts you for it. I believe it serves that purpose reasonably well. There are three criteria that ALL have to be met (1. identical or confusingly similar to your trademark, 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith). In cases where these are met, it's pretty clear that the owner should be losing the domain. I think it would make sense to add a rule that someone who issues a spurious UDRP request should be required to pay the domain holder some default amount of compensation for the hassle, but overall, I think this is a process that makes the Internet better, not worse. |
|
|
If I was in his position, I would definitely feel the implicit threat of "if you're not willing to provide all the info we're requesting, you lose your domain".
> 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith
I've read arbitration cases where "The Expert" says (simplifying): "the site is being used for illegal activities, so there's no legitimate use", when no actual court or official institution has declared that the site's content is illegal*. So, you're at the whims of some "Expert's" opinion of what's legitimate, even if it may eventually contradict the actual justice system of your country.
I have very little trust on the competence and fairness of UDRP arbitration.
* And it's not a case where the things are evidently illegal, it's very debatable if they are.