The three elements of conflicts arise include:- Domain name similar or confusingly similar to a trademark (and the complainant has filed an objection before the URDP) The registrant has no interests legally over a particular domain name Domain names which have been registered and utilised in bad faith Only if these three elements are proved during trial before the administrative tribunal (by the complainant) would the complainant be able to prove that the domain name registrant has registered the domain name in bad faith. During the course of trial, the complainant should be able to prove certain evidences:-
The domain name registrant has primarily registered the domain name to sell, rent or transfer the domain name to the true owner later (who is the current trademark holder). The domain name registrant has registrant has tried to register the domain name with the sole purpose of selling the domain name later to a competitor of the complainant. The domain name has been registered to prevent the trademark holder from using the domain name for his usual business. Domain name has been registered for obstructing the usual trade of the complainant.
The domain name registered has registered the domain name so as to create confusion in the public or to have an association with the original trademark holder and gain commercially. There is every chance that the people would get confused in such a situation and may get attracted to the domain name . The domain name holder however has certain rights over the legitimate claim and use of a domain name. Some of the legitimate interests of the domain name holder include:- The domain name is being utilised for the honest interests of the domain name holder
The domain name holder has created a separate identity for himself and is known most often by the domain name, even though a separate trademark does not exist. The domain name has been created for legal and non-commercial interests, meeting up to the fair use clauses. The domain name has not been created to confuse people with an association to a particular trademark or to tarnish/dilute the image of the original trademark holder . The complainant has the choice of selecting an administrative tribunal from the variety offered for handling that particular case.
The ICANN would appoint a panel that would discuss the case and offer its decision based on evidence. The complainant or the respondent can file a single administrative hearing before the panel if multiple disputes are present. The administrative panel has the right to discuss all the cases as one or separate each out, depending up on the policy of the ICANN. The fees for the administrative procedure under the URDP would be paid by the complainant, and in case the complainant requires that the panel be increased from one member to three members, the fees would also increase and would be payable by the complainant and the respondent.
The ICANN would not participate in any administrative procedure held in front of the administrative panel, and at the same time cannot be held liable for any decisions given by the panel. In case the complainant is able to prove his/her point, the domain name of the respondent would be cancelled by the administrative panel and would be handed over to the complainant. Once the administrative panel makes a decision, the ICANN would be informed, and the efforts would be made by the organisation to inform the public through the website. In certain cases requiring reasonable secrecy, efforts would be made not to publish such information .