Dispute Resolution Service

13 March 2001

Matthew Rippon
Prettys Solicitors

DRS Review

I have read your review and proposed policy with some interest. Initially I was concerned that you had sought to ignore the important issue of whether the registrant of a disputed domain name has any rights in the name, but on further consideration of that point I have changed my mind.

Under the UDRP this is, of course, an essential element, but one that requires the Complainant to prove a negative. The only practical alternative is to require the Registrant to establish that s/he has some form of right to use the domain name in question, but this reversal of the burden of proof may rightly be regarded as unjust, particularly in the light of the Human Rights Act.

Nevertheless, the inclusion of this requirement was important to the UDRP as it served to protect genuine protest or commentary sites. I see instead that you have specifically included protection for these purposes under the bad faith section, which may, in any event, be the logical place to find such protection.

The single most impressive advantage of the proposals (from a neutral perspective) is the inclusion of the rules on reverse hijacking. This is an issue that seems to have been added to the UDRP as an afterthought. There is no guidance and no form of punishment. The "3 strikes" rule you have proposed makes a great deal more sense, and will force trademark owners to consider very carefully each case before raising a complaint.