video Live UDRP panel verdict (NamesCon 2021)

[redemo]

This was a mock U.D.R.P. hearing they videoed live at Names Con 2021 https://www.internetcommerce.org/for-the-first-time-ever-a-live-udrp-hearing/. Found it on the I.C.A. (Internet Commerce Association) blog. Preamble: " For the first time ever, you can see a “live” demonstration of how an actual UDRP domain name dispute case is argued and adjudicated. The ICA is very pleased to present in association with the International Trademark Association (INTA) a “moot” or “mock” UDRP hearing. This innovative and lively session will feature three actual UDRP Panelists as they hear a fictional UDRP case influenced by real-world facts. The case will be presented by experienced lawyers making arguments for the trademark owner and for the domain name registrant, respectively. Read the interesting “fictional” facts of the case, here. The case involves a famous Thailand-based energy drink company called, “Red Ball”, and a domain name investor from Iowa, Connie Domainus in a dispute over the fictional domani name Red Ball dot com. Was the domain name registered and used in bad faith to target the Complainant? Or did the registrant register the Domain Name because it had inherent value as corresponding to a descriptive term? Now you don’t need to just read about a case after it happens, you can see it argued and decided in real time! The ICA and INTA have put together a dream team of counsel and panelists: George Nahitchevansky as Complainant Counsel, Karen Bernstein as Respondent Counsel, and Gerald Levine, Steve Levy, and Francine Tan (Chair), serving as Panelists. Lori Schulman from INTA and Zak Muscovitch and Kamila Sekiewicz of ICA will both be making brief remarks at the beginning of the session. "

 

[jberryhill]

For the first time ever, you can see a “live” demonstration of how an actual UDRP domain name dispute case is argued

That's somewhat misleading.

UDRP cases are not "argued" at all. They are decided entirely on the arguments and evidence submitted in writing.

It was an interesting exercise, but probably gave people a wrong impression, since it had nothing to do with "how an actual UDRP domain name dispute case is argued."

 

[redemo]

That's somewhat misleading.

UDRP cases are not "argued" at all. They are decided entirely on the arguments and evidence submitted in writing.

It was an interesting exercise, but probably gave people a wrong impression, since it had nothing to do with "how an actual UDRP domain name dispute case is argued."

Hi @jberryhill and thanks for your feedback. Wasn't supposed to be misleading. Should I request mod team to amend the thread title?

 

[jberryhill]

Wasn't supposed to be misleading. Should I request mod team to amend the thread title?

No. That's how the organizers billed it. I just wanted to point out that what they said wasn't true, in case anyone might have thought this had anything to do with how UDRP cases actually work.

 

[redemo]

No. That's how the organizers billed it. I just wanted to point out that what they said wasn't true, in case anyone might have thought this had anything to do with how UDRP cases actually work.

Got it. Can you recommend any real videos of U.D.R.P. panel decisions from start to finish please? Cheers.

 

[jberryhill]

Can you recommend any real videos of U.D.R.P. panel decisions from start to finish please?

No. There is nothing that happens in a UDRP proceeding of which to make a video.

Maybe I'm not being clear.

The way the UDRP works is that a complainant pays a fee and submits a written complaint and evidence. The UDRP provider (WIPO or any of the other accredited providers), then sends an email to the registrar who locks the name and confirms the registrant information.

The domain registrant is then notified by email. The respondent has 20 days to file a response, and optionally select a three member panel. The response, just like the complaint, is a written document and evidence.

The UDRP provider then appoints either a single panelist from their roster, or goes through a panel selection process for a three member panel. The panel is appointed and is sent the complaint, the response, and whatever else the parties may have submitted.

The panel then reads the submissions and writes a decision. If it is a three-member panel, they might have a telephone conference to privately discuss whether they all agree and the mechanics of how the decision will be written, or they may confer by email. After the decision is written, it is emailed to the UDRP provider who formats it, sends it by email to the parties and the registrar, and posts it on their site.

Of what would there be a "real video"? In most cases, it is a single member panel, and the only thing to capture on video would be a person (a) reading stuff and then (b) writing stuff. If it is a three member panel and they decide to have a telephone call, that's not something that is recorded or transcribed. There are no "hearings" in UDRP proceedings.

That's why this video is kind of annoying. It is a misrepresentation of how UDRP proceedings work, and it gives people an entirely false impression.

 

[redemo]

No. There is nothing that happens in a UDRP proceeding of which to make a video.

Maybe I'm not being clear.

The way the UDRP works is that a complainant pays a fee and submits a written complaint and evidence. The UDRP provider (WIPO or any of the other accredited providers), then sends an email to the registrar who locks the name and confirms the registrant information.

The domain registrant is then notified by email. The respondent has 20 days to file a response, and optionally select a three member panel. The response, just like the complaint, is a written document and evidence.

The UDRP provider then appoints either a single panelist from their roster, or goes through a panel selection process for a three member panel. The panel is appointed and is sent the complaint, the response, and whatever else the parties may have submitted.

The panel then reads the submissions and writes a decision. If it is a three-member panel, they might have a telephone conference to privately discuss whether they all agree and the mechanics of how the decision will be written, or they may confer by email. After the decision is written, it is emailed to the UDRP provider who formats it, sends it by email to the parties and the registrar, and posts it on their site.

Of what would there be a "real video"? In most cases, it is a single member panel, and the only thing to capture on video would be a person (a) reading stuff and then (b) writing stuff. If it is a three member panel and they decide to have a telephone call, that's not something that is recorded or transcribed. There are no "hearings" in UDRP proceedings.

That's why this video is kind of annoying. It is a misrepresentation of how UDRP proceedings work, and it gives people an entirely false impression.

Thanks for sharing your professional U.D.R.P expertise. Something that would be useful. A short up-to-date video describing everything you've explained. I did some research and found a 14-part U.D.R.P. masterclass playlist which is embedded below. It's from 2020 so might be superseded by new legislation now?