For example, in cases where the combination of the mark and the TLD signals potential legitimate co-existence or fair use, and where the related website content supports such inference, panels would tend to focus their inquiry on the second element. On the other hand, in cases where the TLD corresponds to the complainant’s area of trade so as to signal an abusive intent to confuse Internet users, panels have found this relevant to assessment under the third element. Panel assessment of identity or confusing similarity involves comparing the (alpha-numeric) domain name and the textual components of the relevant mark. To the extent that design (or figurative/stylized) elements would be incapable of representation in domain names, these elements are largely disregarded for purposes of assessing identity or confusing similarity under the first element. Such design elements may be taken into account in limited circumstances e.g., when the domain name comprises a spelled-out form of the relevant design element. To conclude, it is understood that for a successful case in a UDRP dispute, it is an absolute necessity for the Complainant to prove all three elements, which the complainant failed to do so in the present case.

(Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the URS rules address concurrent legal proceedings.) In such event, the filing party may wish to consider whether to withdraw any such URS case after the filing of the UDRP proceeding, to maintain the registrar “lock” on the domain name while avoiding potential questions regarding implementation of overlapping decisions. In some limited cases such as where the parties share a common nationality and the import of a specific national law concept is particularly germane to an issue in dispute, panels have applied national law principles sunstate academy fort myers florida in assessing the UDRP elements. In such cases, panels have often noted in the applicable UDRP decision the fact that the laws of a particular jurisdiction (possibly that elected by the complainant under UDRP paragraph 4) may well govern any subsequent court case. Paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules grants a panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. At the same time, paragraph 3 of the UDRP Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.

Taking all matters into careful consideration, the Panel holds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. As to the use in bad faith, as already stated above, the disputed domain name previously resolved to various websites, including a mirror site of a Chinese university’s official website by replacing the name of the university with “快三平台” (“fast three platform”, a lottery website), and a website displaying gaming, gambling and lottery advertisements. Further, the fact that the disputed domain name appears to be linked to a number of different webpages indicate that a proportion of Internet visitors, who genuinely wish to access the Complainant’s webpages, would be inadvertently directed to other sites which are not genuinely related to the Complainant. To fulfill the third requirement, the Complainant must prove that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Given this, the Complainant believes that the disputed domain name is used to conduct illegal lottery business in China.” To support these allegations the Complainant submitted screenshots of the relevant webpages dated August 23, 2021. In the circumstances, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel decides that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel further finds that such determination would not cause any prejudice to either Party and would ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.

You will find the name and contact details of the Complainant, as well as the domain name that is/are the subject of the Complaint in the document that accompanies this Coversheet. This stems in part from the fact that, aside from not being specifically linked together by ICANN in procedural terms, the URS and UDRP are distinct dispute resolution mechanisms. While the UDRP operates on an “on balance” standard, the burden of proof on the more limited pleadings provided for under the URS requires that the complainant demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the particular case facts merit a determination in its favor.

In certain highly exceptional circumstances (e.g., where even through a Procedural Order via the complainant the third party is unreachable), a panel may order cancellation of the disputed domain name as opposed to a requested transfer. In the interest of fairness and to preserve continuity in the case, prior to panel appointment and determination of the language of the proceedings, where possible, the WIPO Center seeks to send “dual language” case-related communications to the parties (i.e., in both the language of the registration agreement, and the language of the complaint). Facts or circumstances supporting an inference that a change in registrant has occurred may typically include a change in the content of the website to which a domain name directs to take advantage of the complainant’s mark or unsolicited attempts to sell the domain name to the complainant only following such asserted change in registrant. Also, irrespective of registrant representations undertaken further to UDRP paragraph 2, panels have found that the mere renewal of a domain name registration by the same registrant is insufficient to support a finding of registration in bad faith.

Paragraph 12 of the UDRP Rules expressly provides that it is for the panel to request, in its sole discretion, any further statements or documents from the parties it may deem necessary to decide the case. The credibility of any submissions by the parties and in particular those of the respondent are particularly relevant. For discussion of specific application by panels of the policy criteria see the discussion below at sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.4. Many of the considerations applied in relation to criticism sites, as discussed above in section 2.6, also are considered by panels as relevant in relation to fan sites. At the other extreme, certain critical terms (e.g., ) tend to communicate, prima facie at least, that there is no such affiliation.