A recent domain name transfer ordered by the World Intellectual
Property Organisation (“WIPO”) overlooked the actual wording of the
policy governing domain name disputes, according to the internet
forum ICANN Watch, which has attacked WIPO for acting against the
interests of internet users.
The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) allows a domain
name to be transferred if three tests are satisfied. First, that a
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to your trade mark;
second, that the owner has no rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name; and third, that it was registered and used in bad
faith. In this case David Wilkinson an aggrieved customer of UK car
dealer Reg Vardy Plc registered the domain name reg-vardy.com and
set up a web site for “customer driven complaints” against the
company.
The WIPO panel found that the domain name was confusingly
similar to the Reg Vardy trademark and that Mr Wilkinson had no
legitimate interests in registering the domain name. The evidence
presented before the panel was sufficient for the sole panelist to
conclude that the registration had been made in bad faith for the
purposes of disrupting the business of Reg Vardy.
However, ICANN Watch criticised the case because the UDRP
expressly states that bad faith exists only where the registration
is made with the intention of disrupting the business of a
competitor. The panel acknowledged that Mr Wilkinson was not a
competitor, but concluded that a transfer could still be justified
under the UDRP because he found that the registration was
“primarily for the purpose of disrupting [Reg Vardy’s] business
with the objective of causing harm and nuisance to [Reg Vardy]”. Mr
Wilkinson is now running his site from the domain name
regvardysucks.com.
