As a registrant and registrar of internet domain names, Compana believes that a procedure for resolving domain name property disputes is necessary. Unfortunately, the UDRP, implemented by ICANN in 2000, has led to some abusive practices. While a procedure resolving domain name disputes is undeniably needed, the UDRP – in its current form, has often been abused by overreaching trademark zealots to seize property from its rightful owners. Law review articles, such as professor Michael Geist’s study. have brought to light some of the of the flaws in this problematic process.
A number of overreaching trademark plaintiff lawyers have exploited the flaws in the UDRP to prey on internet property owners, many of which do not have the resources to protect their property. Prevailing in a UDRP proceeding and taking a domain owner’s property is shockingly easy for a plaintiff bent on exploiting the process. To win, a plaintiff must simply allege that the domain name property owner engaged in an act of “bad faith.” The typical UDRP exploiters submits a written complaint making false allegations of “bad faith”, “squatting” and unlawful activity, without any evidence or facts, other than the existence of a domain name that bears some resemblance to a company's name- regardless how obscure or generic it is. Often times, this is all that’s required for a domain name owner to lose its property. The UDRP panelist issues its opinion based on the UDRP exploiter’s false allegations, without verifying any facts. Without further action by the domain name owner, it loses its property and acquires the reputation of a bad faith trademark infringer, though a defamatory opinion letter, permanently published on the Internet. Compana, along with countless others have been victimized by UDRP exploiters in this way.
The flaws in the UDRP and the manifestly unjust results of that process require internet domain property owners to litigate these issues in a court. Unfortunately, this causes a tremendous expense for both the victimized internet domain name owner as well as the UDRP exploiter. Compana takes wrongful UDRP filings and accusations seriously, and aggressively litigates each UDRP filing in a United States court.
In one case, Trans Continental Records filed a UDRP against Compana. Compana had registered the domain name LFO.COM. Of the millions of domain names registered, there are only 17,576 dot-com names that have only three letter (such as xyz.com). This makes these names valuable because they can stand for many possible abbreviations. Transcontinental took UDRP action because they had the rights to one of those abbreviations: Lyte Funky Ones, apparently a pop music band. Compana sued in court to clear the title to its domain name – and won a judgment affirming Compana’s rights and requiring Transcontinental to pay damages to Compana.
In a more recent situation, a purveyor of job related advice prosecuted a UDRP action against Compana’s domain name property, FABJOBS.COM. Although the UDRP panel “ruled in favor” of Compana, to clear the title of its property, Compana filed suit and objtained judgment in its favor. After considerable expense, the parties resolved their differences amicably.
Bendon Limited Company filed a UDRP for a name previously owned by Compana, making extraordinarily inflamatory accusations. Based on Bendon Limited's false statements, the UDRP panelist issued an equally inflamatory opinion and published it on the internet. To clear its name, Compana filed suit, and the court awarded Compana a judgment, including a large award of money damages.
Compana reacts seriously to all overreaching trademark holders who exploit the UDRP process and allege “squatter” or “bad faith” in an attempt to seize Compana’s property. Compana is not a squatter. Compana is in the long-term business of acquiring and developing domain names similar to companies like Internet REIT, Inc. and Marchex, Inc.. Compana does not engage in the bad faith activities of the classic squatter, such as registering registered domain names in the hopes of selling them to holders of potentially similar trademarks. Instead, Compana develops the capability known as “navigation search” or “direct navigation” where web users simply type their search terms as a domain name into the address bar of their web browser. (For example, servers.com.) If the domain name is one owned by Compana, the user sees a listing of resources related to the search terms. Compana invests in this capability for the long-term and does not seek short term profits by selling names to potential claimants,
Therefore, Compana litigates each instance of abusive UDRP filing. Compana has never lost a case in court.