A namepros member met an unfair domain Arbitration Result

[domainnews]

Hello you all ，

I am writing here to you because the domain name AMA.cl, which we previously registered, was successfully arbitrated by the Chilean company AMATIME.comSpA through the Chilean arbitration institution NIC.cl. The opposing party's lawyers were the Chilean firm Silva.cl.

The arbitration award was sent to us by email yesterday. After reading the award notice, we learned that the arbitrator's reasoning was unconvincing, and the opposing lawyers' arguments in their response did not sufficiently prove that they had adequate grounds to obtain ownership of the domain name.

Therefore, we do not accept this unfair arbitration and are now seeking the assistance of professional lawyers. We hope to receive your valuable insights, consultation on litigation-related costs, and information on the likelihood of winning the case.

Best Regards

Ama.cl

 

[domainnews]

The domain we got before bided from auction platform Catched.com

 

[domainnews]

Attached

 

[jberryhill]

https://www.udrp.ucn.cl/

 

[domainnews]

Hello Jberryhill

I just received an email from nic.cl (Chilean domain name) stating that the domain has been awarded to the law firm of Amatime. According to the WHOIS information, the ownership has been changed from me to nic.cl. Currently, I have 20 days to provide written materials, after which the arbitrator will terminate the arbitration proceedings and archive the documents. I would like to ask, what are the chances of successfully contacting this organization?

Firstly, in this arbitration case, the arbitrator's judgment standard was based on the Chilean domain name arbitration standard, not the UDRP ruling. This is because the arbitrator did not consider the three elements of domain name arbitration. If it were based on the domain UDRP, I should be the domain owner.

Thank you very much

 

[jberryhill]

Are you asking me?

I provided you a link to free legal help in Chile. In fact, Nic.cl provides a list of people who provide free legal help for domain disputes in .cl:

https://www.nic.cl/controversias/orientacion-legal.html

NIC Chile has developed the Free Legal Assistance and Guidance Program for users of . CL, which is offered through an alliance with legal clinics of national law powers, with the aim of improving the information and defense conditions of domain name holders, when faced with a conflict scenario for a domain name and arbitral judgment.

There are links to people, in Chile, who are listed there to provide you with free legal help.

I don't mean this as a personal comment, but if your translation into Spanish of whatever it is you filed in your domain case is anything like the English posted here, then it's not a surprise the other side won. I know people think that AI and automatic translation have replaced actually knowing what one is doing, but it's astounding that nic.cl offers links to free legal help, right on the dispute section of their website, and you'd rather post messages on Namepros.

 

[jberryhill]

Therefore, we do not accept this unfair arbitration and are now seeking the assistance of professional lawyers.

Just in case anyone decides to go this route, it's worth pointing out to ANYONE in a domain dispute that if you would spend money to litigate an unfavorable result, then the time to contact a lawyer is BEFORE you have made all kinds of statements and filings that a lawyer is not going to be able to walk back for you.

If it were based on the domain UDRP, I should be the domain owner.

And if my aunt had wheels and a six-cylinder engine, she'd be a Chevy. But .cl is a ccTLD. ccTLDs can establish their own dispute policies. The .cl ccTLD uses its own dispute policy, which is not the UDRP.

That's like saying "If I was in California, I would be able to buy cannabis" when you are busted for buying it in Kansas. It's not legal in Kansas. They have their own laws. If you got this far thinking the UDRP applied to .cl names, then, again, the result is not a big surprise.

 

[jberryhill]

And, no, your argument about the domain having been registered in 2011 would not have won under the UDRP either.

You acquired the domain name in 2025 in a drop auction. Whether someone else had the domain name in 2011 has nothing to do with the facts of your acquisition of the domain name in 2025. While it can be relevant to point out that the name has been registered for a long time for purposes which demonstrate the possibility of concurrent use, the argument that "It's been registered since 2011 which is prior to their mark" is a loser argument under the UDRP if you were not the registrant since 2011.

Link to the decision, in case anyone wants to read it without sorting through single page images:

https://www.nic.cl/rcal/downloadResolucion.do?uuid=5c270738-0511-4914-bb6e-470ccff83f4e

Link to the decision in context of a list of .cl domain decisions:

https://www.nic.cl/rcal/fallos.do

From that list, one can get an idea of the general trend of these things.