The rule in the UDRP to trigger Lock on domain name, immediately after responding of verification by the Registrar to the Provider (Paragraph 4 (b) of Rules) & until pending of the Complaint with the Provider (albeit effect of which is minimum), is somehow alike ex-parte. Of course, the provision of reverse domain name hijacking or the Complaint itself in bad faith is available to the Respondent, to counter Provision of Bad Faith Use, used by the Complainant against Respondent under Rules, & further within a day, the Lock too is removed post dismissal or withdrawal of Complaint.
Another thing is, when the Respondent contends to elect three members in Panelist Whereas the Complainant, One (Paragraph 3(b)(iv) of the Rules); then why One Half be paid by Respondent (Paragraph 5(d) of the Rules), as complaint was initiated by the Complainant itself in absence of any such alike arbitration agreement? Shouldn’t there be a Static Quorum? Albeit the process is extremely robust & the decision timeline too, which is commendable, but witnessing the spread of gtld, cctld, & as, never all the permutation combinations of domain names can be parked or floated online w.r.t. any trademark; the Policy & its Rules should in itself needs an expansion. And it’s always beneficial of existence of subject specific disputes redressal boards’, for arbitration or otherwise. Less bureaucratic, more robust & quicker in disposing.© Pranav Chaturvedi
No comments:
Post a Comment