RE: [registrars] UDRP not really arbitration, US 3rd Circuit rules

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Michael,

This is exactly how the UDRP was designed. I do not see the problem. The
UDRP was never designed to foreclose either domain name registrant or
trademark owner from seeking a judicial determination. The UDRP is simply an
administrative proceding.

Mike



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Michael Bilow
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 7:59 PM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] UDRP not really arbitration, US 3rd Circuit rules
>
>
> [Tradition disclaimer: This is not legal advice.]
>
> Eric Dluhos, a pro se litigant who apparently argued his case personally
> before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
> won a unanimous decision that seems to pretty well eviscerate the UDRP
> process.  My reading of the court's opinion, as a practical matter, is
> that a prospective complainant can only lose but not win a UDRP hearing.
>
> This decision does not seem to have attracted a lot of attention, but it
> could have interesting implications.  If the UDRP results are not entitled
> to any weight or deference by a court, and a losing registrant in a UDRP
> process is entitled to de novo review upon filing suit in court, then what
> purpose does the UDRP serve?  If the complainant wins a UDRP hearing, the
> losing registrant will simply litigate do novo; if the complainant loses a
> UDRP hearing, any litigation must follow the adverse conclusion.
>
> -- Mike
>
>
>    Method of Resolution in Domain Name Case Not True Arbitration
>    Shannon P. Duffy
>    The Legal Intelligencer
>    02-21-2003
>
>    An arbitration panel's decision in a dispute over the rights to an
>    Internet domain name is not entitled to "extremely deferential" review
>    in the federal courts because such proceedings do not fall under the
>    Federal Arbitration Act, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has
>    ruled.
>
>    In Dluhos v. Strasberg, a unanimous three-judge panel found that the
>    dispute resolution policies established by the Internet Corporation
>    for Assigned Names and Numbers does not qualify as a true arbitration
>    under the FAA.
>
> The full article is available here:
>
> http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcele
rate/View&c=LawArticle&cid=1045754124197

The opinion of the court is available here:

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/recentop/week/013713.pdf (opinion)
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/recentop/week/013713o.pdf (corrections)