Domain Name Disputes

Domain name disputes arise when cybersquatters register domain names that are identical to or are similar to the trademarks,
tradenames or service mark of companies.

Internet Domain Name System (DNS) was designed for locating machines on the Internet by mapping between human-friendly mnemonic names and their underlying (IP) addresses.

Even where trademarks are not registered the companies have been able to receive favourable awards by proving that they
have obtained trademark rights in the names.

Domain name dispute resolution providers have held that a person has common law rights in his/her name and have in a large number of cases ordered the transfer of domain.Till recently cybersquatters registered domain names that were similar to the names/trademarks of companies and names of well-known individuals.

Registering the ad-lines of companies as domain names is a common practice now. But the question whether a company has
rights in such ad-lines. The companies have to establish their rights in such ad-lines and the corresponding domain names.

Under the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which governs the resolution of domain name disputes the Complainant must prove that:

• A person has to prove that he has trademark rights in the mark that has been registered as a domain name; and
  
• The domain name in issue is identical or similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
  
• The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
  
• The domain name has been registered in bad faith.

A person may acquire trademark rights in a mark through registration of such marks, or he may establish rights to a mark
through use, which are referred to as common law rights.

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards - Further information concerning this Convention,
including information concerning ratification, accession and succession and concerning declarations and reservations, may be
obtained through the Treaty Section of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, web site
http://www.uncitral.org

WIPO Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures ADR

Companies with registered trademarks or service marks can evict cybersquatters through dispute resolution providers like
WIPO.

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center offers clauses, rules and neutrals for the following Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures:

Mediation: a non-binding procedure in which a neutral intermediary, the mediator, assists the parties in reaching a settlement of the dispute. WIPO Mediation Rules

Arbitration: a neutral procedure in which the dispute is submitted to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision on the dispute.

Expedited arbitration: an arbitration procedure that is carried out in a short time and at reduced cost.

Mediation followed, in the absence of a settlement, by arbitration: a procedure that combines mediation and, where the dispute is not settled through the mediation, arbitration.

The WIPO Rules are appropriate for all commercial disputes. However, they contain provisions on confidentiality and technical and experimental evidence that are of special interest to parties to intellectual property disputes.

WIPO Mediation Rules

Abbreviated Expressions

Article 1

In these Rules:

"Mediation Agreement" means an agreement by the parties to submit to mediation all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them; a Mediation Agreement may be in the form of a mediation clause in a contract or in the form of a separate contract;

"Mediator" includes a sole mediator or all the mediators where more than one is appointed;

"WIPO" means the World Intellectual Property Organization;

"Center" means the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, a unit of the International Bureau of WIPO;

Words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.

Scope of Application of Rules

Article 2

Where a Mediation Agreement provides for mediation under the WIPO Mediation Rules, these Rules shall be deemed to form part of that Mediation Agreement. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, these Rules as in effect on the date of the commencement of the mediation shall apply.

Commencement of the Mediation

Article 3

(a) A party to a Mediation Agreement that wishes to commence a mediation shall submit a Request for Mediation in writing to the Center. It shall at the same time send a copy of the Request for Mediation to the other party.

(b) The Request for Mediation shall contain or be accompanied by:

(i) the names, addresses and telephone, telefax, e-mail or other communication references of the parties to the dispute and of the representative of the party filing the Request for Mediation;

(ii) a copy of the Mediation Agreement; and

(iii) a brief statement of the nature of the dispute.

Article 4

The date of the commencement of the mediation shall be the date on which the Request for Mediation is received by the Center.

Article 5

The Center shall forthwith inform the parties in writing of the receipt by it of the Request for Mediation and of the date of the commencement of the mediation.

Appointment of the Mediator

Article 6

(a) Unless the parties have agreed themselves on the person of the mediator or on another procedure for appointing the mediator, the mediator shall be appointed by the Center after consultation with the parties.

(b) The prospective mediator shall, by accepting appointment, be deemed to have undertaken to make available sufficient time to enable the mediation to be conducted expeditiously.

Article 7

The mediator shall be neutral, impartial and independent.

Representation of Parties and Participation in Meetings

Article 8

(a) The parties may be represented or assisted in their meetings with the mediator.

(b) Immediately after the appointment of the mediator, the names and addresses of persons authorized to represent a party, and the names and positions of the persons who will be attending the meetings of the parties with the mediator on behalf of that party, shall be communicated by that party to the other party, the mediator and the Center.

Conduct of the Mediation

Article 9

The mediation shall be conducted in the manner agreed by the parties. If, and to the extent that, the parties have not made such agreement, the mediator shall, in accordance with these Rules, determine the manner in which the mediation shall be conducted.

Article 10

Each party shall cooperate in good faith with the mediator to advance the mediation as expeditiously as possible.

Article 11

The mediator shall be free to meet and to communicate separately with a party on the clear understanding that information given at such meetings and in such communications shall not be disclosed to the other party without the express authorization of the party giving the information.

Article 12

(a) As soon as possible after being appointed, the mediator shall, in consultation with the parties, establish a timetable for the submission by each party to the mediator and to the other party of a statement summarizing the background of the dispute, the party's interests and contentions in relation to the dispute and the present status of the dispute, together with such other information and materials as the party considers necessary for the purposes of the mediation and, in particular, to enable the issues in dispute to be identified.

(b) The mediator may at any time during the mediation suggest that a party provide such additional information or materials as the mediator deems useful.

(c) Any party may at any time submit to the mediator, for consideration by the mediator only, written information or materials which it considers to be confidential. The mediator shall not, without the written authorization of that party, disclose such information or materials to the other party.

Role of the Mediator

Article 13

(a) The mediator shall promote the settlement of the issues in dispute between the parties in any manner that the mediator believes to be appropriate, but shall have no authority to impose a settlement on the parties.

(b) Where the mediator believes that any issues in dispute between the parties are not susceptible to resolution through mediation, the mediator may propose, for the consideration of the parties, procedures or means for resolving those issues which the mediator considers are most likely, having regard to the circumstances of the dispute and any business relationship between the parties, to lead to the most efficient, least costly and most productive settlement of those issues. In particular, the mediator may so propose:

(i) an expert determination of one or more particular issues;

(ii) arbitration;

(iii) the submission of last offers of settlement by each party and, in the absence of a settlement through mediation, arbitration conducted on the basis of those last offers pursuant to an arbitral procedure in which the mission of the arbitral tribunal is confined to determining which of the last offers shall prevail; or

(iv) arbitration in which the mediator will, with the express consent of the parties, act as sole arbitrator, it being understood that the mediator may, in the arbitral proceedings, take into account information received during the mediation.

Confidentiality

Article 14

No recording of any kind shall be made of any meetings of the parties with the mediator.

Article 15

Each person involved in the mediation, including, in particular, the mediator, the parties and their representatives and advisors, any independent experts and any other persons present during the meetings of the parties with the mediator, shall respect the confidentiality of the mediation and may not, unless otherwise agreed by the parties and the mediator, use or disclose to any outside party any information concerning, or obtained in the course of, the mediation. Each such person shall sign an appropriate confidentiality undertaking prior to taking part in the mediation.

Article 16

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, each person involved in the mediation shall, on the termination of the mediation, return, to the party providing it, any brief, document or other materials supplied by a party, without retaining any copy thereof. Any notes taken by a person concerning the meetings of the parties with the mediator shall be destroyed on the termination of the mediation.

Article 17

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the mediator and the parties shall not introduce as evidence or in any manner whatsoever in any judicial or arbitration proceeding:

(i) any views expressed or suggestions made by a party with respect to a possible settlement of the dispute;

(ii) any admissions made by a party in the course of the mediation;

(iii) any proposals made or views expressed by the mediator;

(iv) the fact that a party had or had not indicated willingness to accept any proposal for settlement made by the mediator or by the other party.

Termination of the Mediation

Article 18

The mediation shall be terminated:

(i) by the signing of a settlement agreement by the parties covering any or all of the issues in dispute between the parties;

(ii) by the decision of the mediator if, in the mediator's judgment, further efforts at mediation are unlikely to lead to a resolution of the dispute; or

(iii) by a written declaration of a party at any time after attending the first meeting of the parties with the mediator and before the signing of any settlement agreement.

Article 19

(a) Upon the termination of the mediation, the mediator shall promptly send to the Center a notice in writing that the mediation is terminated and shall indicate the date on which it terminated, whether or not the mediation resulted in a settlement of the dispute and, if so, whether the settlement was full or partial. The mediator shall send to the parties a copy of the notice so addressed to the Center.

(b) The Center shall keep the said notice of the mediator confidential and shall not, without the written authorization of the parties, disclose either the existence or the result of the mediation to any person.

(c) The Center may, however, include information concerning the mediation in any aggregate statistical data that it publishes concerning its activities, provided that such information does not reveal the identity of the parties or enable the particular circumstances of the dispute to be identified.

Article 20

Unless required by a court of law or authorized in writing by the parties, the mediator shall not act in any capacity whatsoever, otherwise than as a mediator, in any pending or future proceedings, whether judicial, arbitral or otherwise, relating to the subject matter of the dispute.

Administration Fee

Article 21

(a) The Request for Mediation shall be subject to the payment to the Center of an administration fee, the amount of which shall be fixed in accordance with the Schedule of Fees applicable on the date of the Request for Mediation.

(b) The administration fee shall not be refundable.

(c) No action shall be taken by the Center on a Request for Mediation until the administration fee has been paid.

(d) If a party who has filed a Request for Mediation fails, within 15 days after a second reminder in writing from the Center, to pay the administration fee, it shall be deemed to have withdrawn its Request for Mediation.

Fees of the Mediator

Article 22

(a) The amount and currency of the fees of the mediator and the modalities and timing of their payment shall be fixed by the Center, after consultation with the mediator and the parties.

(b) The amount of the fees shall, unless the parties and the mediator agree otherwise, be calculated on the basis of the hourly or, if applicable, daily indicative rates set out in the Schedule of Fees applicable on the date of the Request for Mediation, taking into account the amount in dispute, the complexity of the subject matter of the dispute and any other relevant circumstances of the case.

Deposits

Article 23

(a) The Center may, at the time of the appointment of the mediator, require each party to deposit an equal amount as an advance for the costs of the mediation, including, in particular, the estimated fees of the mediator and the other expenses of the mediation. The amount of the deposit shall be determined by the Center.

(b) The Center may require the parties to make supplementary deposits.

(c) If a party fails, within 15 days after a second reminder in writing from the Center, to pay the required deposit, the mediation shall be deemed to be terminated. The Center shall, by notice in writing, inform the parties and the mediator accordingly and indicate the date of termination.

(d) After the termination of the mediation, the Center shall render an accounting to the parties of any deposits made and return any unexpended balance to the parties or require the payment of any amount owing from the parties.

Costs

Article 24

Unless the parties agree otherwise, the administration fee, the fees of the mediator and all other expenses of the mediation, including, in particular, the required travel expenses of the mediator and any expenses associated with obtaining expert advice, shall be borne in equal shares by the parties.

Exclusion of Liability

Article 25

Except in respect of deliberate wrongdoing, the mediator, WIPO and the Center shall not be liable to any party for any act or omission in connection with any mediation conducted under these Rules.

Waiver of Defamation

Article 26

The parties and, by accepting appointment, the mediator agree that any statements or comments, whether written or oral, made or used by them or their representatives in preparation for or in the course of the mediation shall not be relied upon to found or maintain any action for defamation, libel, slander or any related complaint, and this Article may be pleaded as a bar to any such action.

Suspension of Running of Limitation Period under the Statute of Limitations

Article 27

The parties agree that, to the extent permitted by the applicable law, the running of the limitation period under the Statute of Limitations or an equivalent law shall be suspended in relation to the dispute that is the subject of the mediation from the date of the commencement of the mediation until the date of the termination of the mediation.

.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP)

Definitions

Arbitrator refers to the experts who have expertise on computer and/or laws, possess a high sense of professional ethics and are
capable of rendering independent and unbiased decisions in domain name disputes.

Complainant refers to the person who has complaint against the Registrant.

.IN Registry: Wherever used in this policy and the rules hereunder .IN Registry refers to the National Internet Exchange of India
(NIXI), a company registered under section 25 of the Indian Companies Act 1956.

Person includes an individual, institution, organization, company, partnership or any other legal entity etc.

Registrar shall mean a domain name registrar who is duly accredited with the .IN Registry pursuant to a Registrar Accreditation
Agreement and is listed on the website of the .IN Registry, www.registry.in.

"Registrant" is a holder of the .in Internet domain name.

Purpose
This .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") sets out the terms and conditions to resolve a dispute between
the Registrant and the Complainant, arising out of the registration and use of the .in Internet Domain Name.

The Registrant's Representations
By applying to register a domain name, or by asking a Registrar to maintain or renew a domain name registration, the Registrant
represents and warrants that:

(a) the statements that the Registrant made in the Registrant's Application Form for Registration of Domain Name are complete
and accurate;

(b) to the Registrant's knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any
third party;

(c) the Registrant is not registering the domain name for an unlawful purpose; and

(d) the Registrant will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations.

It is the Registrant's responsibility to determine whether the Registrant's domain name registration infringes or violates someone
else's rights.

Types of Disputes

Any Person who considers that a registered domain name conflicts with his legitimate rights or interests may file a Complaint to
the .IN Registry on the following premises:

(i) the Registrant's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) the Registrant's domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

The Registrant is required to submit to a mandatory Arbitration proceeding in the event that a Complainant files a complaint to
the .IN Registry, in compliance with this Policy and Rules thereunder.

Procedure of Dispute Resolution

The .IN Registry shall appoint an Arbitrator out of the list of arbitrators maintained by the Registry.

The List of the Arbitrators shall be published on line by the .IN Registry on its website at www.registry.in.

The Arbitrator shall conduct the Arbitration Proceedings in accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 as
amended from time to time and also in accordance with this Policy and rules provided thereunder.

Evidence of Registration and use of Domain Name in Bad Faith

For the purposes of Paragraph 5(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Arbitrator to
be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling,
renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant, who bears the name or is the owner of the
trademark or service mark, or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Registrant's
documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting
the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) by using the domain name, the Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Registrant's website or
other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's name or mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of the Registrant's website or location or of a product or service on the Registrant's website or
location.

Registrant's Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name

Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Arbitrator to be proved based on its
evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the Registrant's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for the
purposes of Paragraph 5 (ii) :

(i) before any notice to the Registrant of the dispute, the Registrant's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain
name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

(ii) the Registrant (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the
Registrant has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Registrant is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to
misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

Fees

Except as otherwise stated in this policy or the Rules hereunder, all fees charged by the .IN Registry in connection with any
dispute pursuant to this Policy shall be paid by the Complainant.

Involvement of Registry and the Registrar in Arbitration Proceedings

The Registry and the Registrars shall not participate in the domain name dispute resolution proceedings in any capacity or
manner other than providing the information relevant to the registration and use of the domain name upon the request of the
Arbitrator . Neither the Registry nor the Registrar shall be liable for any decisions rendered by an Arbitrator.

Remedies

The remedies available to a Complainant pursuant to any proceeding before an Arbitrator shall be limited to requiring the
cancellation of the Registrant's domain name or the transfer of the Registrant's domain name registration to the Complainant.
Costs as may be deemed fit may also be awarded by the Arbitrator.

Notification and Publication

All decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Arbitration Panel decides in an
exceptional case to edit portions of its decision.

Transfers During a Dispute

The Registrant shall not transfer a domain name registration to another holder:
(i) In case an Arbitration proceeding is initiated pursuant to this policy, for a period of fifteen (15) working days ("working day"
means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday) after such proceeding is concluded; or

(ii) during a pending court proceeding or arbitration commenced regarding the domain name, unless the party to whom the
domain name registration is being transferred agrees, in writing, to be bound by the decision of the court or arbitrator.

The Registry reserves the right to cancel any transfer of a domain name registration to another holder that is made in violation of
this paragraph.

Policy Modifications

The Government of India reserves the right to add, delete, amend or modify this Policy (and the rules framed thereunder) at any
time. The revised policy shall be posted on the website of the registry at www.registry.in at least Fifteen (15) calendar days
before it becomes effective. The complaints submitted prior to the date of implementation of the revised policy would be
entertained and decided in accordance with the policy in force at the time of filing the complaint. However, with effect from the
date the revised policy comes in existence all complaints filed would be dealt with as per the revised policy. The Registrants shall
be bound by the terms and conditions of the policy, rules, guidelines, bylaws framed by the .IN Registry from time to time.

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(As Approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999)

1. Purpose. This Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") has been adopted by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), is incorporated by reference into your Registration Agreement,
and sets forth the terms and conditions in connection with a dispute between you and any party other than us (the registrar)
over the registration and use of an Internet domain name registered by you. Proceedings under Paragraph 4 of this Policy will
be conducted according to the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules of Procedure"), which
are available at www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm, and the selected administrative-dispute-resolution service
provider's supplemental rules.

2. Your Representations. By applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name
registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us that (a) the statements that you made in your Registration Agreement are
complete and accurate; (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate
the rights of any third party; (c) you are not registering the domain name for an unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not
knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is your responsibility to determine
whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else's rights.

3. Cancellations, Transfers, and Changes. We will cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to domain name registrations
under the following circumstances:

a. subject to the provisions of Paragraph 8, our receipt of written or appropriate electronic instructions from you or your
authorized agent to take such action;

b. our receipt of an order from a court or arbitral tribunal, in each case of competent jurisdiction, requiring such action; and/or

c. our receipt of a decision of an Administrative Panel requiring such action in any administrative proceeding to which you
were a party and which was conducted under this Policy or a later version of this Policy adopted by ICANN. (See
Paragraph 4(i) and (k) below.)

We may also cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to a domain name registration in accordance with the terms of your
Registration Agreement or other legal requirements.

4. Mandatory Administrative Proceeding.

This Paragraph sets forth the type of disputes for which you are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding.
These proceedings will be conducted before one of the administrative-dispute-resolution service providers listed at
www.icann.org/udrp/approved-providers.htm (each, a "Provider").

a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a
"complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.

b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in
particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain
name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of
selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark
or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented
out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the
mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site
or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

c. How to Demonstrate Your Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name in Responding to a Complaint. When
you receive a complaint, you should refer to Paragraph 5 of the Rules of Procedure in determining how your response should
be prepared. Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based
on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for
purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name
corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have
acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to
misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

d. Selection of Provider. The complainant shall select the Provider from among those approved by ICANN by submitting the
complaint to that Provider. The selected Provider will administer the proceeding, except in cases of consolidation as
described in Paragraph 4(f).

e. Initiation of Proceeding and Process and Appointment of Administrative Panel. The Rules of Procedure state the process
for initiating and conducting a proceeding and for appointing the panel that will decide the dispute (the "Administrative Panel").

f. Consolidation. In the event of multiple disputes between you and a complainant, either you or the complainant may petition
to consolidate the disputes before a single Administrative Panel. This petition shall be made to the first Administrative Panel
appointed to hear a pending dispute between the parties. This Administrative Panel may consolidate before it any or all such
disputes in its sole discretion, provided that the disputes being consolidated are governed by this Policy or a later version of
this Policy adopted by ICANN.

g. Fees. All fees charged by a Provider in connection with any dispute before an Administrative Panel pursuant to this Policy
shall be paid by the complainant, except in cases where you elect to expand the Administrative Panel from one to three
panelists as provided in Paragraph 5(b)(iv) of the Rules of Procedure, in which case all fees will be split evenly by you and the
complainant.

h. Our Involvement in Administrative Proceedings. We do not, and will not, participate in the administration or conduct of any
proceeding before an Administrative Panel. In addition, we will not be liable as a result of any decisions rendered by the
Administrative Panel.

i. Remedies. The remedies available to a complainant pursuant to any proceeding before an Administrative Panel shall be
limited to requiring the cancellation of your domain name or the transfer of your domain name registration to the complainant.

j. Notification and Publication. The Provider shall notify us of any decision made by an Administrative Panel with respect to a
domain name you have registered with us. All decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except
when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.

k. Availability of Court Proceedings. The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not
prevent either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent
resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded. If an
Administrative Panel decides that your domain name registration should be canceled or transferred, we will wait ten (10)
business days (as observed in the location of our principal office) after we are informed by the applicable Provider of the
Administrative Panel's decision before implementing that decision. We will then implement the decision unless we have
received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint,
file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which
the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the
location of our principal office or of your address as shown in our Whois database. See Paragraphs 1 and 3(b)(xiii) of the
Rules of Procedure for details.) If we receive such documentation within the ten (10) business day period, we will not
implement the Administrative Panel's decision, and we will take no further action, until we receive (i) evidence satisfactory to
us of a resolution between the parties; (ii) evidence satisfactory to us that your lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn; or
(iii) a copy of an order from such court dismissing your lawsuit or ordering that you do not have the right to continue to use
your domain name.

5. All Other Disputes and Litigation. All other disputes between you and any party other than us regarding your domain name
registration that are not brought pursuant to the mandatory administrative proceeding provisions of Paragraph 4 shall be
resolved between you and such other party through any court, arbitration or other proceeding that may be available.

6. Our Involvement in Disputes. We will not participate in any way in any dispute between you and any party other than us
regarding the registration and use of your domain name. You shall not name us as a party or otherwise include us in any such
proceeding. In the event that we are named as a party in any such proceeding, we reserve the right to raise any and all
defenses deemed appropriate, and to take any other action necessary to defend ourselves.

7. Maintaining the Status Quo. We will not cancel, transfer, activate, deactivate, or otherwise change the status of any domain
name registration under this Policy except as provided in Paragraph 3 above.

8. Transfers During a Dispute.

a. Transfers of a Domain Name to a New Holder. You may not transfer your domain name registration to another holder (i)
during a pending administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Paragraph 4 or for a period of fifteen (15) business days (as
observed in the location of our principal place of business) after such proceeding is concluded; or (ii) during a pending court
proceeding or arbitration commenced regarding your domain name unless the party to whom the domain name registration is
being transferred agrees, in writing, to be bound by the decision of the court or arbitrator. We reserve the right to cancel any
transfer of a domain name registration to another holder that is made in violation of this subparagraph.

b. Changing Registrars. You may not transfer your domain name registration to another registrar during a pending
administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Paragraph 4 or for a period of fifteen (15) business days (as observed in the
location of our principal place of business) after such proceeding is concluded. You may transfer administration of your
domain name registration to another registrar during a pending court action or arbitration, provided that the domain name you
have registered with us shall continue to be subject to the proceedings commenced against you in accordance with the terms
of this Policy. In the event that you transfer a domain name registration to us during the pendency of a court action or
arbitration, such dispute shall remain subject to the domain name dispute policy of the registrar from which the domain name
registration was transferred.

9. Policy Modifications. We reserve the right to modify this Policy at any time with the permission of ICANN. We will post
our revised Policy at least thirty (30) calendar days before it becomes effective. Unless this Policy has already been invoked
by the submission of a complaint to a Provider, in which event the version of the Policy in effect at the time it was invoked will
apply to you until the dispute is over, all such changes will be binding upon you with respect to any domain name registration
dispute, whether the dispute arose before, on or after the effective date of our change. In the event that you object to a
change in this Policy, your sole remedy is to cancel your domain name registration with us, provided that you will not be
entitled to a refund of any fees you paid to us. The revised Policy will apply to you until you cancel your domain name
registration.

Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(the "Rules")
(As Approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999)

Administrative proceedings for the resolution of disputes under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy adopted by ICANN shall be governed by these Rules and also the Supplemental Rules of the Provider administering the proceedings, as posted on its web site.

1. Definitions

In these Rules:

Complainant means the party initiating a complaint concerning a domain-name registration.

ICANN refers to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

Mutual Jurisdiction means a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a) the principal office of the Registrar (provided the domain-name holder has submitted in its Registration Agreement to that jurisdiction for court adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from the use of the domain name) or (b) the domain-name holder's address as shown for the registration of the domain name in Registrar's Whois database at the time the complaint is submitted to the Provider.

Panel means an administrative panel appointed by a Provider to decide a complaint concerning a domain-name registration.

Panelist means an individual appointed by a Provider to be a member of a Panel.

Party means a Complainant or a Respondent.

Policy means the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy that is incorporated by reference and made a part of the Registration Agreement.

Provider means a dispute-resolution service provider approved by ICANN. A list of such Providers appears at www.icann.org/udrp/approved-providers.htm.

Registrar means the entity with which the Respondent has registered a domain name that is the subject of a complaint.

Registration Agreement means the agreement between a Registrar and a domain-name holder.

Respondent means the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated.

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.

Supplemental Rules means the rules adopted by the Provider administering a proceeding to supplement these Rules. Supplemental Rules shall not be inconsistent with the Policy or these Rules and shall cover such topics as fees, word and page limits and guidelines, the means for communicating with the Provider and the Panel, and the form of cover sheets.

2. Communications

(a) When forwarding a complaint to the Respondent, it shall be the Provider's responsibility to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent. Achieving actual notice, or employing the following measures to do so, shall discharge this responsibility:

(i) sending the complaint to all postal-mail and facsimile addresses (A) shown in the domain name's registration data in Registrar's Whois database for the registered domain-name holder, the technical contact, and the administrative contact and (B) supplied by Registrar to the Provider for the registration's billing contact; and

(ii) sending the complaint in electronic form (including annexes to the extent available in that form) by e-mail to:

(A) the e-mail addresses for those technical, administrative, and billing contacts;

(B) postmaster@<the contested domain name>; and

(C) if the domain name (or "www." followed by the domain name) resolves to an active web page (other than a generic page the Provider concludes is maintained by a registrar or ISP for parking domain-names registered by multiple domain-name holders), any e-mail address shown or e-mail links on that web page; and

(iii) sending the complaint to any address the Respondent has notified the Provider it prefers and, to the extent practicable, to all other addresses provided to the Provider by Complainant under Paragraph 3(b)(v).

(b) Except as provided in Paragraph 2(a), any written communication to Complainant or Respondent provided for under these Rules shall be made by the preferred means stated by the Complainant or Respondent, respectively (see Paragraphs 3(b)(iii) and 5(b)(iii)), or in the absence of such specification

(i) by telecopy or facsimile transmission, with a confirmation of transmission; or

(ii) by postal or courier service, postage pre-paid and return receipt requested; or

(iii) electronically via the Internet, provided a record of its transmission is available.

(c) Any communication to the Provider or the Panel shall be made by the means and in the manner (including number of copies) stated in the Provider's Supplemental Rules.

(d) Communications shall be made in the language prescribed in Paragraph 11. E-mail communications should, if practicable, be sent in plaintext.

(e) Either Party may update its contact details by notifying the Provider and the Registrar.

(f) Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, or decided by a Panel, all communications provided for under these Rules shall be deemed to have been made:

(i) if delivered by telecopy or facsimile transmission, on the date shown on the confirmation of transmission; or

(ii) if by postal or courier service, on the date marked on the receipt; or

(iii) if via the Internet, on the date that the communication was transmitted, provided that the date of transmission is verifiable.

(g) Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, all time periods calculated under these Rules to begin when a communication is made shall begin to run on the earliest date that the communication is deemed to have been made in accordance with Paragraph 2(f).

(h) Any communication by

(i) a Panel to any Party shall be copied to the Provider and to the other Party;

(ii) the Provider to any Party shall be copied to the other Party; and

(iii) a Party shall be copied to the other Party, the Panel and the Provider, as the case may be.

(i) It shall be the responsibility of the sender to retain records of the fact and circumstances of sending, which shall be available for inspection by affected parties and for reporting purposes.

(j) In the event a Party sending a communication receives notification of non-delivery of the communication, the Party shall promptly notify the Panel (or, if no Panel is yet appointed, the Provider) of the circumstances of the notification. Further proceedings concerning the communication and any response shall be as directed by the Panel (or the Provider).

3. The Complaint

(a) Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Policy and these Rules to any Provider approved by ICANN. (Due to capacity constraints or for other reasons, a Provider's ability to accept complaints may be suspended at times. In that event, the Provider shall refuse the submission. The person or entity may submit the complaint to another Provider.)

(b) The complaint shall be submitted in hard copy and (except to the extent not available for annexes) in electronic form and shall:

(i) Request that the complaint be submitted for decision in accordance with the Policy and these Rules;

(ii) Provide the name, postal and e-mail addresses, and the telephone and telefax numbers of the Complainant and of any representative authorized to act for the Complainant in the administrative proceeding;

(iii) Specify a preferred method for communications directed to the Complainant in the administrative proceeding (including person to be contacted, medium, and address information) for each of (A) electronic-only material and (B) material including hard copy;

(iv) Designate whether Complainant elects to have the dispute decided by a single-member or a three-member Panel and, in the event Complainant elects a three-member Panel, provide the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the Panelists (these candidates may be drawn from any ICANN-approved Provider's list of panelists);

(v) Provide the name of the Respondent (domain-name holder) and all information (including any postal and e-mail addresses and telephone and telefax numbers) known to Complainant regarding how to contact Respondent or any representative of Respondent, including contact information based on pre-complaint dealings, in sufficient detail to allow the Provider to send the complaint as described in Paragraph 2(a);

(vi) Specify the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint;

(vii) Identify the Registrar(s) with whom the domain name(s) is/are registered at the time the complaint is filed;

(viii) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and, for each mark, describe the goods or services, if any, with which the mark is used (Complainant may also separately describe other goods and services with which it intends, at the time the complaint is submitted, to use the mark in the future.);

(ix) Describe, in accordance with the Policy, the grounds on which the complaint is made including, in particular,

(1) the manner in which the domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(2) why the Respondent (domain-name holder) should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint; and

(3) why the domain name(s) should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith

(The description should, for elements (2) and (3), discuss any aspects of Paragraphs 4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy that are applicable. The description shall comply with any word or page limit set forth in the Provider's Supplemental Rules.);

(x) Specify, in accordance with the Policy, the remedies sought;

(xi) Identify any other legal proceedings that have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to any of the domain name(s) that are the subject of the complaint;

(xii) State that a copy of the complaint, together with the cover sheet as prescribed by the Provider's Supplemental Rules, has been sent or transmitted to the Respondent (domain-name holder), in accordance with Paragraph 2(b);

(xiii) State that Complainant will submit, with respect to any challenges to a decision in the administrative proceeding canceling or transferring the domain name, to the jurisdiction of the courts in at least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction;

(xiv) Conclude with the following statement followed by the signature of the Complainant or its authorized representative:

"Complainant agrees that its claims and remedies concerning the registration of the domain name, the dispute, or the dispute's resolution shall be solely against the domain-name holder and waives all such claims and remedies against (a) the dispute-resolution provider and panelists, except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, (b) the registrar, (c) the registry administrator, and (d) the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, as well as their directors, officers, employees, and agents."

"Complainant certifies that the information contained in this Complaint is to the best of Complainant's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument."; and

(xv) Annex any documentary or other evidence, including a copy of the Policy applicable to the domain name(s) in dispute and any trademark or service mark registration upon which the complaint relies, together with a schedule indexing such evidence.

(c) The complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.

4. Notification of Complaint

(a) The Provider shall review the complaint for administrative compliance with the Policy and these Rules and, if in compliance, shall forward the complaint (together with the explanatory cover sheet prescribed by the Provider's Supplemental Rules) to the Respondent, in the manner prescribed by Paragraph 2(a), within three (3) calendar days following receipt of the fees to be paid by the Complainant in accordance with Paragraph 19.

(b) If the Provider finds the complaint to be administratively deficient, it shall promptly notify the Complainant and the Respondent of the nature of the deficiencies identified. The Complainant shall have five (5) calendar days within which to correct any such deficiencies, after which the administrative proceeding will be deemed withdrawn without prejudice to submission of a different complaint by Complainant.

(c) The date of commencement of the administrative proceeding shall be the date on which the Provider completes its responsibilities under Paragraph 2(a) in connection with forwarding the Complaint to the Respondent.

(d) The Provider shall immediately notify the Complainant, the Respondent, the concerned Registrar(s), and ICANN of the date of commencement of the administrative proceeding.

5. The Response

(a) Within twenty (20) days of the date of commencement of the administrative proceeding the Respondent shall submit a response to the Provider.

(b) The response shall be submitted in hard copy and (except to the extent not available for annexes) in electronic form and shall:

(i) Respond specifically to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent (domain-name holder) to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name (This portion of the response shall comply with any word or page limit set forth in the Provider's Supplemental Rules.);

(ii) Provide the name, postal and e-mail addresses, and the telephone and telefax numbers of the Respondent (domain-name holder) and of any representative authorized to act for the Respondent in the administrative proceeding;

(iii) Specify a preferred method for communications directed to the Respondent in the administrative proceeding (including person to be contacted, medium, and address information) for each of (A) electronic-only material and (B) material including hard copy;

(iv) If Complainant has elected a single-member panel in the Complaint (see Paragraph 3(b)(iv)), state whether Respondent elects instead to have the dispute decided by a three-member panel;

(v) If either Complainant or Respondent elects a three-member Panel, provide the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the Panelists (these candidates may be drawn from any ICANN-approved Provider's list of panelists);

(vi) Identify any other legal proceedings that have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to any of the domain name(s) that are the subject of the complaint;

(vii) State that a copy of the response has been sent or transmitted to the Complainant, in accordance with Paragraph 2(b); and

(viii) Conclude with the following statement followed by the signature of the Respondent or its authorized representative:

"Respondent certifies that the information contained in this Response is to the best of Respondent's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument."; and

(ix) Annex any documentary or other evidence upon which the Respondent relies, together with a schedule indexing such documents.

(c) If Complainant has elected to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel and Respondent elects a three-member Panel, Respondent shall be required to pay one-half of the applicable fee for a three-member Panel as set forth in the Provider's Supplemental Rules. This payment shall be made together with the submission of the response to the Provider. In the event that the required payment is not made, the dispute shall be decided by a single-member Panel.

(d) At the request of the Respondent, the Provider may, in exceptional cases, extend the period of time for the filing of the response. The period may also be extended by written stipulation between the Parties, provided the stipulation is approved by the Provider.

(e) If a Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint.

6. Appointment of the Panel and Timing of Decision

(a) Each Provider shall maintain and publish a publicly available list of panelists and their qualifications.

(b) If neither the Complainant nor the Respondent has elected a three-member Panel (Paragraphs 3(b)(iv) and 5(b)(iv)), the Provider shall appoint, within five (5) calendar days following receipt of the response by the Provider, or the lapse of the time period for the submission thereof, a single Panelist from its list of panelists. The fees for a single-member Panel shall be paid entirely by the Complainant.

(c) If either the Complainant or the Respondent elects to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the Provider shall appoint three Panelists in accordance with the procedures identified in Paragraph 6(e). The fees for a three-member Panel shall be paid in their entirety by the Complainant, except where the election for a three-member Panel was made by the Respondent, in which case the applicable fees shall be shared equally between the Parties.

(d) Unless it has already elected a three-member Panel, the Complainant shall submit to the Provider, within five (5) calendar days of communication of a response in which the Respondent elects a three-member Panel, the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the Panelists. These candidates may be drawn from any ICANN-approved Provider's list of panelists.

(e) In the event that either the Complainant or the Respondent elects a three-member Panel, the Provider shall endeavor to appoint one Panelist from the list of candidates provided by each of the Complainant and the Respondent. In the event the Provider is unable within five (5) calendar days to secure the appointment of a Panelist on its customary terms from either Party's list of candidates, the Provider shall make that appointment from its list of panelists. The third Panelist shall be appointed by the Provider from a list of five candidates submitted by the Provider to the Parties, the Provider's selection from among the five being made in a manner that reasonably balances the preferences of both Parties, as they may specify to the Provider within five (5) calendar days of the Provider's submission of the five-candidate list to the Parties.

(f) Once the entire Panel is appointed, the Provider shall notify the Parties of the Panelists appointed and the date by which, absent exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall forward its decision on the complaint to the Provider.

7. Impartiality and Independence

A Panelist shall be impartial and independent and shall have, before accepting appointment, disclosed to the Provider any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubt as to the Panelist's impartiality or independence. If, at any stage during the administrative proceeding, new circumstances arise that could give rise to justifiable doubt as to the impartiality or independence of the Panelist, that Panelist shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the Provider. In such event, the Provider shall have the discretion to appoint a substitute Panelist.

8. Communication Between Parties and the Panel

No Party or anyone acting on its behalf may have any unilateral communication with the Panel. All communications between a Party and the Panel or the Provider shall be made to a case administrator appointed by the Provider in the manner prescribed in the Provider's Supplemental Rules.

9. Transmission of the File to the Panel

The Provider shall forward the file to the Panel as soon as the Panelist is appointed in the case of a Panel consisting of a single member, or as soon as the last Panelist is appointed in the case of a three-member Panel.

10. General Powers of the Panel

(a) The Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.

(b) In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

(c) The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. It may, at the request of a Party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time fixed by these Rules or by the Panel.

(d) The Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.

(e) A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.

11. Language of Proceedings

(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.

(b) The Panel may order that any documents submitted in languages other than the language of the administrative proceeding be accompanied by a translation in whole or in part into the language of the administrative proceeding.

12. Further Statements

In addition to the complaint and the response, the Panel may request, in its sole discretion, further statements or documents from either of the Parties.

13. In-Person Hearings

There shall be no in-person hearings (including hearings by teleconference, videoconference, and web conference), unless the Panel determines, in its sole discretion and as an exceptional matter, that such a hearing is necessary for deciding the complaint.

14. Default

(a) In the event that a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any of the time periods established by these Rules or the Panel, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint.

(b) If a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, these Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.

15. Panel Decisions

(a) A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

(b) In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall forward its decision on the complaint to the Provider within fourteen (14) days of its appointment pursuant to Paragraph 6.

(c) In the case of a three-member Panel, the Panel's decision shall be made by a majority.

(d) The Panel's decision shall be in writing, provide the reasons on which it is based, indicate the date on which it was rendered and identify the name(s) of the Panelist(s).

(e) Panel decisions and dissenting opinions shall normally comply with the guidelines as to length set forth in the Provider's Supplemental Rules. Any dissenting opinion shall accompany the majority decision. If the Panel concludes that the dispute is not within the scope of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it shall so state. If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

16. Communication of Decision to Parties

(a) Within three (3) calendar days after receiving the decision from the Panel, the Provider shall communicate the full text of the decision to each Party, the concerned Registrar(s), and ICANN. The concerned Registrar(s) shall immediately communicate to each Party, the Provider, and ICANN the date for the implementation of the decision in accordance with the Policy.

(b) Except if the Panel determines otherwise (see Paragraph 4(j) of the Policy), the Provider shall publish the full decision and the date of its implementation on a publicly accessible web site. In any event, the portion of any decision determining a complaint to have been brought in bad faith (see Paragraph 15(e) of these Rules) shall be published.

17. Settlement or Other Grounds for Termination

(a) If, before the Panel's decision, the Parties agree on a settlement, the Panel shall terminate the administrative proceeding.

(b) If, before the Panel's decision is made, it becomes unnecessary or impossible to continue the administrative proceeding for any reason, the Panel shall terminate the administrative proceeding, unless a Party raises justifiable grounds for objection within a period of time to be determined by the Panel.

18. Effect of Court Proceedings

(a) In the event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision.

(b) In the event that a Party initiates any legal proceedings during the pendency of an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, it shall promptly notify the Panel and the Provider. See Paragraph 8 above.

19. Fees

(a) The Complainant shall pay to the Provider an initial fixed fee, in accordance with the Provider's Supplemental Rules, within the time and in the amount required. A Respondent electing under Paragraph 5(b)(iv) to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, rather than the single-member Panel elected by the Complainant, shall pay the Provider one-half the fixed fee for a three-member Panel. See Paragraph 5(c). In all other cases, the Complainant shall bear all of the Provider's fees, except as prescribed under Paragraph 19(d). Upon appointment of the Panel, the Provider shall refund the appropriate portion, if any, of the initial fee to the Complainant, as specified in the Provider's Supplemental Rules.

(b) No action shall be taken by the Provider on a complaint until it has received from Complainant the initial fee in accordance with Paragraph 19(a).

(c) If the Provider has not received the fee within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the complaint, the complaint shall be deemed withdrawn and the administrative proceeding terminated.

(d) In exceptional circumstances, for example in the event an in-person hearing is held, the Provider shall request the Parties for the payment of additional fees, which shall be established in agreement with the Parties and the Panel.

20. Exclusion of Liability

Except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, neither the Provider nor a Panelist shall be liable to a Party for any act or omission in connection with any administrative proceeding under these Rules.

21. Amendments

The version of these Rules in effect at the time of the submission of the complaint to the Provider shall apply to the administrative proceeding commenced thereby. These Rules may not be amended without the express written approval of ICANN.

Approved Providers for Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy

The uniform dispute resolution policy is now in effect.
Complaints under the policy may be submitted to any approved dispute-resolution service provider listed below. Each provider follows the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as well as its own supplemental rules. To go to the web site of a provider, click on its name below:
Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre [ADNDRC] (approved effective 28 February 2002). It has two offices, in Beijing and Hong Kong. The Beijing office's supplemental rules appear here and the Hong Kong office's supplemental rules appear here.
CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution [CPR] (approved effective 22 May 2000).
The National Arbitration Forum [NAF] (approved effective 23 December 1999).
World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO] (approved effective 1 December 1999).
Additional providers may be approved from time to time.

Domain Name Disputes Case Law

Case Law - 2006

Cap Gemini v. Manila Industries Inc., “Cap Gemini” - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0027
Convergys Corporation v. Roshni Sohail - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0043
CPP, Inc. v. Virtual Sky - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0201
Deutsche Post AG v. NJDomains - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0001
Diageo North America, Inc. dba The 7 Crown Distilling Company v. ZJ - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0210
Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited v. Maria Stephen - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0152
Tata Sons Limited v. tataconnect - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0572
Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center, Alberta Hot Rods - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0560
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kani - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0032
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kuchora, Kal - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0033
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Terry Davies - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0031

Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora - Plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants, their partners, servants and agents from operating any business and/or selling, offering for sale, advertising and in any manner dealing in any service or goods on the Internet or otherwise under the trademark/domain name 'Yahooindia.Com' 1999 Delhi High Court, India.

Manish Vij & others v. Indra Chugh & others - Plaintiffs instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from operating any business, making, selling/transferring, offering for sale, advertising and in any other manner dealing with the goods or services using domain name 'www.kabadibazaar.com' or any other combination thereof, as a website on the internet, identical with or descriptively similar to plaintiffs trade name / domain name 'www.kabadibazaar.com'.2002 Delhi High Court, India.

Online Indian Captial Co. Pvt. v. Dimensions Corporate - Suit was filed seeking to restrain the defendant permanently from using the website under the name of WWW.MUTUALFUNDSINDIA.COM or in any other identical name, inter alia, alleging that plaintiff No. 2 acquired the proprietary rights of WWW.MUTUALFUNDSINDIA.COM and assigned it in favour of plaintiff No. 1 Company, Website WWW.MUTUALFUNDSINDIA.COM was created on 5th May, 1999. It is alleged that this website provides most comprehensive data on mutual funds. 2000 Delhi High Court, India.

The travel and tourism company Cox & Kings registered the brand name and the ad-line of the company as domain names. Cox & Kings was organising group package holidays under the brand Duniya Dekho and introduced the base line, 'Add More To Your World,' and featured it as an integral part of most of their advertisements. The Company had applied for the registration of a trademark with the words Duniya Dekho, Cox and Kings.
The domain names duniyadekho.com and addmoretoyourworld.com were registered by the Respondent who offered to sell the domain names for valuable consideration.
The Complainant, Cox & Kings filed a case before the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and sought transfer of the above domain names.

Convergys Corporation v. Roshni Sohail - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0043

Bad faith is clear from the Respondent's reply to the Complainant Counsel's demand by letter asking that the Respondent either
cancel the ownership of the domain name at issue or agree to assign it to the Complainant. The Respondent replied by e-mail as
follows: “I do understand that your client is big corporate and you could win this case at ICANN. It would cost you 1600
United States dollars for an ICANN case. I am willing to co-operate and transfer this domain to you. Can you at least
compensate us for our efforts and our domain reg cost etc?”
The Panel noted and agreed with the Complainant’s contentions that the Respondent has registered and is using the domain
name at issue to benefit from ‘typosquatting’, through which the Respondent unfairly attracts and benefits from misdirected traffic
to the Respondent’s website from Internet users seeking information on the Complainant and its products and services.
Respondent has a history of searching lists of domain names that are about to expire, and then buys those domains that the
Respondent suspects will generate significant Internet traffic, based on the similarity of the domain names of legitimate sites. The
Respondent registered the domain name at issue, namely <convergs.com>, a common misspelling of the Complainant’s name
“Convergys” one day after it appeared on an expired domains’ list.
Decision: "In accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name
<convergs.com> be transferred to the Complainant." - Ian Blackshaw, Sole Panelist. Dated: February 17, 2006.

Cap Gemini v. Manila Industries Inc., “Cap Gemini” - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0027

This case refers to a large number of WIPO cases:

“The essence of the Internet is its world wide access” and that therefore “the propriety of a domain name registration may be
questioned by comparing it to a trade mark registered in any country” (Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. Sanchai Aree,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0358).
Confusing similarity depends on the similarity of sound, appearance and idea suggested by the trademark and the domain name
(Sharman License Holdings, Limited v. Icedlt.com, WIPO Case No. D2004-0713).
“Typosquatting”, which arises where the domain name is a slight alphabetical variation of a registered trademark, the panels have found the circumstances of “typosquatting” to constitute confusing similarity (Deutsche Bank AG v. New York TV Tickets Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-1314 and Playboy Enterprises v. Movie Name Company, WIPO Case No. D2001-1201).
The practice of “typosquatting”, that is, registering a domain name with a slight alphabetical variation from a registered
trademark, has been found to constitute confusing similarity. See Pfizer Inc. v. BargainName.com, WIPO Case No.
D2005-0299 (finding that the misspelling of the complainant’s name by omission of a letter amounted to confusing similarity).
Misspelling of a complainant’s name and trademark such as the omission of a letter amounts to confusing similarity (Pfizer Inc. v. BargainName.com, WIPO Case No. D2005-0299). In the Pfizer case, the domain name <pfzer.com> was found to be
identical to Pfizer Inc.’s trademarks, except for the omission of an “i”.
The fact that the CAP GEMINI trademarks are registered in France, in the European Community and in the United States of
America enables the Complainant to question the propriety of the <capgemni.com> domain name which was registered in the
United States of America.
A bona fide offering of goods or services requires, at a minimum, that the Respondent must use the site to sell only the
trademarked goods; otherwise, it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods (Oki
Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No D2001-0903).
The site must accurately disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner; it may not, for example, falsely suggest
that it is the trademark owner, or that the website is the official site (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No
D2001-0903).
where there is no evidence that the Complainant authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark, these
circumstances are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing by the Complainant of absence of rights or legitimate interest in
the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent (Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha (Casio Computer Co., Ltd.) v.
Jongchan Kim, WIPO Case No. D2003-0400).
even where a user who arrives at the site may promptly conclude that it is not what he or she was originally looking for, a
respondent has already succeeded in its purpose of using the trademark to attract the user with a view to commercial gain.
(National Football League Properties, Inc. and Chargers Football Company v. One Sex Entertainment Co., a/k/a
chargergirls.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0118).
The “.com” suffix denoting second-level domain status in the Respondent’s domain name does not affect the fact that the name is identical to the Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
Indeed, there is a confusing similarity between the <capgemni.com> domain name and the CAP GEMINI trademarks visually,
phonetically and conceptually.
Decision: In accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name,
<capgemni.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. - Jonas Gulliksson, Sole Panelist. Dated: May 16, 2006.

Books on domain name dispute resolution:

Domain Name Disputes by Robert A. Badgley Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace Brand Name Bullies: The Quest to Own and Control Culture Online Dispute Resolution For Business Dispute Resolution In Electronic Commerce Defending the Brand Mediation Practice Book Collection of Wipo Domain Name Panel Decisions

Intellectual Property Stories 2005 (Paperback) (November 30, 2005) by Jane C. Ginsburg (Editor), Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss (Editor) Intellectual Property Stories brings famous cases and case law to life by telling the true, never-heard-before stories behind landmark Intellectual Property cases and case law. Intellectual Property Stories is organized into six chapters, each drawing on case law in patents, copyrights, trademarks, or unfair competition, to illustrate the problems intellectual property law encounters. The works, inventions, and marks at issue in these cases and case law vary widely. Intellectual Property Management : A Guide for Scientists, Engineers, Financiers, and Managers (Hardcover) (March 6, 2006) by Claas Junghans, Adam Levy, Rolf Sander (Contributor), Tobias Boeckh (Contributor), Jan Dirk Heerma (Contributor), Christoph Regierer (Contributor) This concise introduction to European patent law and global patent perspectives combines the legal and economic perspectives to adopt a unique approach that serves both inventors -- engineers and scientists -- as well as financiers and economists. Written by experts with first-hand knowledge this book is completely up-to-date, taking into account recent additions to European patent law, especially in the field of biotechnology and genetics. While concentrating on the EU, the world perspective is nevertheless represented, including US particularities. The result is a set of guidelines allowing readers to develop a holistic patent strategy suitable for their specific needs. For scientists, engineers, managers and financiers in the chemical industry. This concise introduction to patent law and strategy combines legal, scientific and economic perspectives to provide a thorough foundation in the subject. The result is a set of guiding principles that allow readers to develop a holistic patent strategy aligned with their needs, and those of both fledgling and established companies. Written by experts with up-to-date and first-hand knowledge in the field, this book takes a global view, with particular emphasis on recent modifications to European Law and the particularities of US Law. It is recommended as first reading for scientists, managers and financiers, as well as providing patent agents and advisors with a balanced commercial perspective. Pirates of the Digital Millennium : How the Intellectual Property Wars Damage Our Personal Freedoms, Our Jobs, and the World Economy (Hardcover) (September 20, 2004) by John Gantz, Jack B. Rochester Pirates of the Digital Millennium: Preface PREFACE It was a quintessential New England fall morning-crisp, sunny, cold-that day in November 2002. We were two old friends and colleagues, getting together for breakfast to catch up, talk about our work, our children, our lives. John, the researcher, was just finishing up a massive project at IDC on the economic impact of worldwide software piracy. Jack, the writer, smelled an important story in the making. We were both amazed at the extent of worldwide copyright violation, astounded at how fast Napster had grown, sad at its demise and the loss of one of the easiest to use software programs we'd ever seen, and amused at how quickly KaZaA had filled its shoes. Little did we know that the casual activity known as file-sharing, or downloading MP3s, would explode in the news six months later when the Recording Industry Association of America began issuing takedown orders on college students. And even though we knew our kids-boys in high school, college, and beyond-were downloaders, we didn t really understand how they felt about what they were doing, about what the music industry was doing, or about copyright infringement in general. Nor, when we met, did we understand the wildly complex facets of copyright law-for example, how it was rewritten 11 separate times during the 1900s, each time granting longer and longer terms of copyright. We had no idea that Mickey Mouse s copyright (1928 2023) would outlive his creator, Walt Disney (1901 1966), by 57 years. We had yet to grasp the full extent of worldwide media piracy and its impact on the global economy. Before we left the breakfast table, we were talking about working together on another book, 20 years after our first collaboration- a widely popular book called The Naked Computer- was published. Our agent and publisher shared our enthusiasm for this new book, and soon we were once again writing together. We have entered the digital millennium, where most, if not all, of our media have been (or soon will be) rendered into the strings of ones and zeroes a computer chip understands. The world is awash in media and entertainment devices, personal computers, Internet connections, and broadband transmission. We re surrounded by MP3 players, TiVo, Personal Video Recorders, CD burners, iPods, laptops, Playstations, and more. Technology has unsheathed a sword of Damocles that makes it possible for us to enjoy media-software, computer games, music, movies-in ways that were not possible 20 years ago. At the same time, it threatens the long-held right of artists and copyright owners to expect a fair return for their intellectual capital and the sweat of their brows. Yet as the media for gaming, music, movies, and computers become ever more interchangeable, so will the public s expectations that they ought to have the right to use them in all the new and different ways they choose. These two viewpoints are in serious conflict. When we began writing Pirates of the Digital Millennium , we held some cherished, all-American beliefs. We believed business is entitled to a profit. We were convinced that black marketeers in other countries are hurting the world s economy by stealing and replicating computer software and games, movies, and other forms of intellectual property. We assumed kids don t really understand copyright and that they re stealing from record companies and artists. But after a year of researching and writing, we didn t end up in quite the same intellectual place we started. This book was a journey of personal discovery. We hope it will be the same for you. We have been forced to scrutinize our personal philosophies and our understanding about what motivates people. We ve had to travel the timeline of copyright protection from the Middle Ages until now to see how it has evolved. We ve had to understand how business, politics, and law mix in today s information society. We ve had to ask: What freedoms have we given up in the name of copyright protection? Our discussion concerns intellectual property: its use and its value. On one hand are those who believe that anything they conjure up, anything that transforms an idea into form, is intellectual property. On the other are the individuals who believe just as passionately that the entire notion of intellectual property is at best a farce, at worst just another way to suck profits out of the ether. In between these two extremes is a spectrum of social, legal, and ethical points of view. There s a battle outside and it s ragin , sang Bob Dylan in The Times They Are A-Changin . This battle pits media conglomerates against teenagers, artists against artists, technology providers against content providers, nations against nations, Internet service providers against entertainment companies, media companies against their best customers-and even law enforcement against organized crime. The ownership of intellectual property has been passing from the minds of artists and into the bank accounts of media businesses for at least 200 years. Yet since the passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, some of those in the media business have developed a lockdown mentality that many people feel threatens their right to enjoy the media they buy however they see fit, as well as the public right of fair use. The concerns discussed in this book rise way beyond simply being able to legitimately download a song from the Internet: They extend all the way to your right to not sit through commercials when you watch a recorded television show. There are those who believe the American model of capitalism, along with American intellectual property, should be promulgated throughout the world economy, with the same terms of sale and use for their products as in the United States, regardless of disparities in economic status or local customs regarding ownership and copying. And there are those who don t. We found ourselves asking a number of these questions as we traveled the road from blank page to completed manuscript: Do we have a right to use media we license or buy in any way we see fit? Do the media publishers have a right to profit for decades from their acquired intellectual property? Is downloading stealing or civil disobedience? Is enforcement curtailing piracy or making it worse? Can we expect to change the hearts and minds of the global citizenry to a capitalistic point of view? Could the software companies and media firms do something different to alleviate the problem? How bad is the problem? Whose problem is it? Why do pirates pirate? And why don t others? This is our invitation to you to take a journey into the heart of intellectual property darkness with us. WHAT S IN THIS BOOK? Here s a roadmap for the 10 chapters of the journey you re about to embark upon with us: Chapter 1, Are You a Digital Pirate ?, presents an overview of the ideas and social situations regarding the licit and illicit use of copyrighted intellectual property. We ask you to evaluate your own behavior, or that of people close to you, to determine if you, or they, are pirates of the digital millennium. Chapter 2, Is it Copyright or the Right to Copy ?, presents a history of modern copyright in what we generally regard as Western civilization, beginning with monks in the European Dark Ages and moving (somewhat regressively) through English law to American issues of fair use and the sanctity of ideas. A table of the political history of copyright concludes the chapter. Chapter 3, Us Against Them ?, explores the war over intellectual property use, providing a fair and balanced perspective of all the competing camps. It s the scorecard-the playbook-of the conflict. Chapter 4, Inside the Corporate Intellect: A Day at Microsoft , explains just what goes into software development, in terms of human intellectual capital and corporate resources. Next time you think how cheap it is to make a CD, remember this chapter and that the aluminum and plastic disc is a very small part of the cost. Chapter 5, Inside the Sausage: The Making of the Digital Millen nium Copyright Act , sets out what led to the creation and passage of this piece of legislation, which has caused one of the most pitched battles between copyists and capitalists in the history of copyright. Chapter 6, Global Fallout , explores the worldwide effects and aftereffects of digital piracy. We re not talking about kids downloading tunes here. In some cases, organized crime is a major player. We explore what it takes for a less privileged country to gain economic footing with our intellectual property. Chapter 7, Dude, Where s My MP3 ?, focuses on youth, primarily American, who regard access to the Internet as an ordained right and anything on it as fair and free game. Yes, a game: If the copyright holders find a way to protect their intellectual property, the game is to crack it. Chapter 8, Eliot Ness or Keystone Kops ?, looks at the attempts- and we do mean attempts-to stem the tide of international piracy and download thievery. While the RIAA did put the fear of God in America s downloaders for a short while, most have come to believe that detection and punishment are unlikely-and it appears they may be right. Ditto for the rest of the digital planet. Chapter 9, Angel on My Shoulder: What s in It for Me? , asks you to examine your own beliefs and ethics in making a personal determination about what s right and what s not, what the other guy does be damned. We all have to take our own ethical stand. Chapter 10, Through the Fog: The Future of Intellectual Property, sums up what we've learned in the foregoing nine chapters, and extrapolates from that some solutions to the problem. Here you can test our logic and vision, and add your own. The Afterword, following Chapter 10, describes each of our personal journeys, where we reveal our views to you. Don't peek until you ve read the book, though! Intellectual Property in the New Millennium : Essays in Honour of William R. Cornish (Hardcover) (October 14, 2004) by David Vaver (Editor), Lionel Bently (Editor) '... this festschrift is thoughtfully compiled and well written, on topics of considerable variety and importance, thus extending its shelf life beyond its immediate celebratory purpose.' World Intellectual Property Organization Magazine Intellectual property law is a subject of increasing economic importance and the focus of a great deal of legislative activity at an international and regional level. This collection brings together contributions from some of the most distinquished scholars in this exciting and controversial field, covering the full extent of intellectual property laws, that is, patents, copyright, trade marks and related rights. the contributions examine some of the most pressing practical and theoretical concerns which intellectual property lawyers face. Open Source Licensing : Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law (Paperback) (July 22, 2004) by Lawrence Rosen A complete guide to the law of open source for developers, managers, and lawyers Now that open source software is blossoming around the world, it is crucial to understand how open source licenses work—and their solid legal foundations. Open Source Initiative general counsel Lawrence Rosen presents a plain-English guide to open source law for developers, managers, users, and lawyers. Rosen clearly explains the intellectual property laws that support open source licensing, carefully reviews today’s leading licenses, and helps you make the best choices for your project or organization. Coverage includes: Explanation of why the SCO litigation and other attacks won’t derail open source Dispelling the myths of open source licensing Intellectual property law for nonlawyers: ownership and licensing of copyrights, patents, and trademarks "Academic licenses": BSD, MIT, Apache, and beyond The "reciprocal bargain" at the heart of the GPL Alternative licenses: Mozilla, CPL, OSL and AFL Benefits of open source, and the obligations and risks facing businesses that deploy open source software Choosing the right license: considering business models, product architecture, IP ownership, license compatibility issues, relicensing, and more Enforcing the terms and conditions of open source licenses Shared source, eventual source, and other alternative models to open source Protecting yourself against lawsuits “I have studied Rosen’s book in detail and am impressed with its scope and content. I strongly recommend it to anybody interested in the current controversies surrounding open source licensing.” - John Terpstra, Samba.org; cofounder, Samba-Team “Linux and open source software have forever altered the computing landscape. The important conversations no longer revolve around the technology but rather the business and legal issues. Rosen’s book is must reading for anyone using or providing open source solutions.” - Stuart F. Cohen, CEO, Open Source Development Labs A complete guide to the law of open source for developers, ma