The right domain name can be crucial to the success of a Web site,
but getting hold of the perfect name is not always easy -
especially if someone else gets to it first.
A number of organisations systematically register various famous
trademarks or trade names as domain names and attempt to sell them
to their rightful owners. This process is commonly known as "domain
name grabbing/ hijacking" or "cybersquatting".
Most businesses are now aware that they have the right to take
legal action against any organisation that registers a domain name
in an attempt to rent it or sell it to its rightful owner, but when
it comes to taking action the options can be confusing. There are a
number of ways that a dispute resolution can be processed, and
there can be considerable time and cost savings to be made by
proceeding via the right channel.
In order to regain possession of a domain name, businesses should
consider the following points:
Court action
To take action in the English/ Welsh courts against a
cybersquatter, a business will have to prove that there has been an
infringement of its trademark or that there has been confusion
caused for a customer, linked to its reputation. Generally, this
confusion must have caused damage to the business or be considered
to injure its goodwill.
Traditionally, high-profile companies have tried to enforce their
domain name rights through the courts, but this can take time and
incur considerable expense. It can make sense to opt for an online
solution. The pros and cons of online resolutions versus court
action have to be weighed up according to each individual
case.
Online resolution
If the domain name being reclaimed
has a .com or .org suffix, the Uniform Domain Name Resolution
Policy (UDRP) should be followed. The business making the claim
must be able to show that the organisation that registered the Web
address has no legitimate interests or rights in the domain name.
Also, the URL must have been used in bad faith, for example, for
sale purposes or to intentionally attract users by creating
confusion.
Once a complaint is registered, the address owner is given an
opportunity to respond. The process takes between 45 and 60 days.
The fees are fixed at $1,500 (£1,075) for one arbitrator or $3,000
for three. In successful cases, the domain name can be cancelled or
transferred to the complainant.
If the domain name has a .co.uk suffix, Nominet's dispute
resolution policy should be followed. As with UDRP, after notifying
Nominet of a complaint the owner has a short period to reply. The
parties then enter into an informal mediation. If this fails, the
complainant pays fees of £750 and an expert is appointed to decide
the issue.
The procedure takes about 40 days. To succeed, the complainant must
show that the Web address was registered in a manner that took
unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to their
rights.
Rulings
With Nominet there is a right of appeal and
with both Nominet and UDRP the decision can be overruled at any
time by a court judgement. In complex or vital cases, it might be
sensible to opt for a court case straight away, as the Nominet or
UDRP decision may be disputed.
As the online solutions are in their infancy, it may well be
sensible to utilise the court route if a domain name is an
essential part of your organisation's branding.
By Charlotte Walker-Osborn, lawyer at Eversheds
www.eversheds.com
Information on Nominet can be found at
www.nic.uk/ref/drs-policy.html
Details of the UDRP are at
www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htmlTaking action: court or online resolution?
CourtAdvantages- Subject to any appeals, the decision is final
- With a strong case, companies should be able to obtain an
interim injunction pending trial
Disadvantages
- Potential jurisdictional issues
- Can be expensive and time-consuming
Online resolution
Advantages
- Simple, fast, cost-effective
- Can be submitted electronically
- No lengthy discovery/ passing of documents
- Fewer potential jurisdictional issues
Disadvantages
- In the UK, online arbitration does not stop a party bringing a
claim in the courts, so there could be extra expense
involved.