Last month we asked how could it take over 5 months for a UDRP decision.
We were talking about the UDRP case for the highly valuable two letter domain name YU.com.
The UDRP was on December 11, 2012 with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Today is June 11th 2013 and there has not been a decision in this case.
We wrote about the UDRP when it was filed back in December noting that it seemed like an attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) situation.
The domain name is still going to a parked page, still for sale and the whois record still hasn’t been updated since December 11th when it was locked by the registrar in response to the UDRP.
Today is six months since the UDRP was filed and as we noted last month could well be a record setter.
In response to last months post, UDRP attorney Zak Muscovitch weighted in to say;
Indeed, this is the longest UDRP case that I am aware of”
“Just doing some theoretical UDRP math out-loud here, to see what a ‘worst case’ scenario time-wise could add up to:
“”Review of complaint for administrative compliance, a few amendments required, and then Christmas and new years hit in late December, early January. Total: 6 weeks”
“Extension of time for holidays and to respond, plus the normal 20 days. Total: Another 6 weeks.”
“Complainant files a supplementary, and the respondent files a supplementary (although this should not really affect the timing of the case normally unless it is via a Panel order, so lets assume that happened…). Total: Another 4 weeks.”
“Nominating and selecting panelists: 2 weeks”
“Rendering decision and taking a long time for some reason and a delay in publishing it perhaps: 6 weeks.”
So that is a theoretical total of 24 weeks or 6 months. 
Lets check back mid-June… 
”
Ok Zak we did
Any other ideas?
Maybe the fine panel in NiceCar.com was for this case 🙂 – or someone of similar stature – and even the kangaroos at WIPO and NAF management are starting to look around that their cocoon is starting to crack 🙂
Very long snowstorm in Geneva? 😉
Michael, I just forwarded you the Decision. This, was quite a case and we battled an extremely overzealous Complaint that did all he could to make a case to steal the domain based, in part, on a newly filed trademark. Sorry, to the “contestants,” but your previous guesses as to why it took so long were incorrect. No problems with WIPO. I don’t believe there has been a case like this one. It appears one panelist just didn’t like the way things were going and decided to “take his ball and go home.” Now, you know.
Was one of the panelists Sandra Franklin – i.e. the NiceCar.com panelist ?
These things rarely keep to the specified schedule in three member panel proceedings. It can be difficult for panelists, who are all over the world, to schedule a mutually convenient time to confer to discuss the case or the decision, and if there are any interesting issues, it can take a while to draft a decision, circulate it to the group, and get feedback and/or a decision by one of the panelists to dissent or to write separately on some issue.
Sometimes the Panel requests further information from the parties, and so they have to give time for one party to respond, the other to reply, and so on.
I’d prefer not to hurry them along, because if there are any issues requiring thought, then they should take as much time as they believe they need to think about it.
It’s one of the reasons the idea of strict “contractual compliance” to administer the UDRP within the specified timeline doesn’t make me comfortable. Those timelines were written into the UDRP before anyone had any practical experience with it. If a three-member panel needs time to deliberate and think about a case, then pushing them along to meet an arbitrary deadline is going to result in more poorly considered decisions than thoughtful ones. Obviously, if the case was a clear and easy transfer, that decision is easy to make in a shorter time. When a case is held up for a while, my impression is that they have already decided it to be at least a “close” case – at that point it is easier to recognize that the presence of a genuine dispute is, itself, a reason to deny a transfer.
“Obviously, if the case was a clear and easy transfer, that decision is easy to make in a shorter time. ”
– but isn’t that why UDRP was created ? – so that non-judges – not retired federal judges – barely lawyers – and professors could hopefully reasonably adjudicate for a few hundred bucks ?
Yes, Brian, it is. And it was to be limited to “clear cut cases”. I will grant you that if a panelist is having a hard time making up his or her mind, then it should occur to them that it is not a “clear cut case”. Sometimes it takes them time to reach that threshold realization that the reason they are having a hard time making up their mind or coming to agreement is because it is not a “clear cut case”.
That’s why, for the URS, I’d like to see a “10 minute rule”. If someone with relevant experience spends more than 10 minutes thinking about it, then the complaint is denied.
“non-judges – not retired federal judges – barely lawyers – and professors could hopefully reasonably adjudicate for a few hundred bucks ?”
WIPO panelists, in general, have relevant qualifications and experience. NAF panelists includes an overlap with the WIPO roster, with a number of retired or semi-retired judges thrown in. That’s why there used to be more oddball decisions out of NAF than WIPO for a while. But at this point in time, a lot of the NAF panelists have gained more experience, and are not as likely to take unsupported allegations in a complaint on faith. There are trade-offs between having someone whose own expertise in trademark law gets in the way of what the parties are actually arguing and proving, someone who doesn’t need an introduction to basic principles of trademark law, and someone who might not know much about trademark law but who has an adequate judicial temperament to know when someone is or is not proving their case.
@Jason Schaeffer – looking forward to reading how that went.