discuss Can a robot register a domain in bad faith?

[pb]

Food for thought. Let's say I write a robot (script) that registers / buys domains based solely on stats such as traffic, backlinks etc. Let's say one of these domains get hit with UDRP. Winning this domain would require proving that the domain was registered in bad faith. But the robot did not pay any attention to the name, it didn't care if it was a trademark or even had any meaning at all. Is it an automatically won case if I can demonstrate (prove) that there was no human interaction when selecting the domain? Or maybe it's automatically lost because a robot could not legally sign the registration agreement?

 

[lock]

I wouldn't give a bot a credit card. Cardholder gets the letter not the bot.

 

[carob]

There have been UDRP cases successfully defended in exactly that way.

Owner batch registered domains through automated process.

 

[carob]

To answer your question, a robot could register domains in bad faith if it were programmed to - it could search TM databases and match them against unregistered domains.

But if it just grabs expiring domains in bulk with broad criteria, it can't have the TM owner in mind so it can be said it wasn't acting in bad faith. But WIPO is unpredictable.

@jberryhill

 

[Hypersot]

To be fair, it's the programmer's job to prevent the script from registering 'sensitive' domains.
It's no excuse that 'the robot did it, not me', imho.

 

[pb]

To be fair, it's the programmer's job to prevent the script from registering 'sensitive' domains.
It's no excuse that 'the robot did it, not me', imho.

Sure, you can easily exclude famous trademarks or offensive words etc., but what you suggest is akin to preventive censorship and we all know it's a hell of a job (if at all possible) to get it done.

 

[jberryhill]

Most of the questions posted to this forum are answered by reference to relevant cases in the WIPO Overview:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/


3.2.3 Willful blindness and the duty to search for and avoid trademark-abusive registrations


Panels have held that especially domainers undertaking bulk purchases or automated registrations have an affirmative obligation to avoid the registration of trademark-abusive domain names. Panelists will look to the facts of the case to determine whether such respondent has undertaken good faith efforts to screen such registrations against readily-available online databases to avoid the registration of trademark-abusive domain names.


Noting the possibility of co-existence of trademarks across jurisdictions and classes of goods and services, and the fact that trademarks which may be inherently descriptive in one context may be generic in another, the mere fact of certain domain names proving identical or confusingly similar to third-party trademarks pursuant to a search does not however mean that such registrations cannot as such be undertaken or would automatically be considered to be in bad faith.


Noting registrant obligations under UDRP paragraph 2, panels have however found that respondents who (deliberately) fail to search and/or screen registrations against available online databases would be responsible for any resulting abusive registrations under the concept of willful blindness; depending on the facts and circumstances of a case, this concept has been applied irrespective of whether the registrant is a professional domainer.

 

[carob]

Most of the questions posted to this forum are answered by reference to relevant cases in the WIPO Overview:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
.

Thanks for posting that. I can see the date there is 2017 - so the cases I saw where automated process was accepted as a defence might have been before 2017, and later they tightened up on that. But WIPO is unpredictable, though usually unpredictable in favour of the person trying to get the domain.

 

[jberryhill]

But WIPO is unpredictable

There are always going to be individual facts that can make things go one way or the other.

There is a tendency among domainers to ignore the relative degree of distinctiveness of a mark. Not all marks are equally as strong, and neither are all defenses.

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

Food for thought. Let's say I write a robot (script) that registers / buys domains based solely on stats such as traffic, backlinks etc. Let's say one of these domains get hit with UDRP. Winning this domain would require proving that the domain was registered in bad faith. But the robot did not pay any attention to the name, it didn't care if it was a trademark or even had any meaning at all. Is it an automatically won case if I can demonstrate (prove) that there was no human interaction when selecting the domain? Or maybe it's automatically lost because a robot could not legally sign the registration agreement?

You could have easily answered your question once you said Let's say I....emphasize on I. A pot cannot create itself....can it? So you will still be liable for it.

 

[frank-germany]

the admin-c is reliable

not the bot

 

[WhoaDomain.com]

A robot CAN register a domain in bad faith.

And while it's doing that it will also go back in time and eliminate the mother of leader of the resistance named John Connor and ask you "would you like to play a game?" and start global thermonuclear war.


But seriously. Nothing good will ever happen if you give a robot full control of your business.

At least that's what every 80's has ever shown us.

imo.

You would need to configure said robot not exclude TM keywords. IF YOU CHOOSE.

Anyone who catches you registering TM domain will ask why you did not set an exclusion list?