Procedural Issues in Domain Name Disputes (Part II)
I. Introduction
Part 1 of this blog post examined some of the key procedural issues surrounding the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP” or “Policy”) legal framework, such as aspects: (i) document-based proceedings; (ii) language; (iii) supplemental filings; (iv) consolidation; and (v) settlement. Building on that foundation, this Part II continues the analysis of a few more key procedural issues and practical questions which are of value to the UDRP practice, namely: (i) relation of the UDRP to court proceedings and appeals; (ii) reverse domain name hijacking, and (iii) forum shopping.
II. Key Procedural Issues
1. Relation of the UDRP to Court Proceedings and Appeals
One of the defining features of the UDRP is that it operates alongside, rather than in place of national court systems. The UDRP is by design allowing court proceedings before, during and after a UDRP proceeding, as it was never meant to function as an exclusive forum for all domain name disputes.
In accordance with para. 4(k) of the UDRP, the UDRP does not prevent the parties “from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded.”[1] This emphasizes the fact that, even though the Policy is mandatory by its terms, it is a non-exclusive alternative dispute resolution framework.[2] In para. 5 of the UDRP, it is made clear that any other disputes between the parties that do not concern domain name registrations shall be resolved by a competent court or preferred forum, like arbitration.[3]
Para. 18(a) of the UDRP Rules clarifies the effects of the court proceedings on the administrative proceeding of the UDRP, which, at the discretion of the panel, shall be either the suspension or termination of the UDRP proceedings or the issuance of a decision. In the event of court orders that concern the disputed domain name of an ongoing UDRP proceeding, panels tend to issue their decision on the merits rather than terminate or suspend the proceedings. Nonetheless, the UDRP decision will not override potential court proceedings or findings.
<croner.com>[4]
In the croner case, a third party notified the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center of ongoing Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States and argued that an automatic stay should suspend the case, which the Panel declined.
Relying on para. 18(a) of the Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP Rules"), the Panel noted that it has discretion to suspend, terminate, or continue proceedings where related legal actions exist, but that panels are generally reluctant to halt UDRP cases due to the risk of indefinite delay. Crucially, the alleged debtor in the bankruptcy proceedings was a different company from the listed registrant of the disputed domain name, and no sufficient evidence was provided linking the bankrupt entity to the domain name or establishing why the U.S. bankruptcy stay should apply to the international UDRP process.
The Panel therefore proceeded to a decision on the merits, while emphasizing that UDRP outcomes do not override court proceedings and that para. 4(k) of the Policy preserved the respondent’s right to commence litigation and thereby suspend implementation of any transfer decision.
Parallel Court Proceedings
Where court proceedings are already pending, panels may need to consider whether it remains appropriate to proceed with the UDRP case.
Panels generally assess factors such as:
Whether the court case concerns the same parties and domain name;
Whether the issues substantially overlap;
The stage of the court proceedings, and
Whether continuing the UDRP case would promote efficiency or risk inconsistent outcomes.
Court Challenges After a UDRP Decision
Perhaps the most significant judicial interaction arises after a complainant succeeds under the UDRP. Under para. 4(k), implementation of a transfer or cancellation decision is subject to a waiting period (typically 10 business days), during which the respondent may commence court proceedings.
If the respondent provides official documentation showing that it has “filed suit”[5] in a competent court, the registrar will generally stay implementation of the UDRP decision pending the outcome of the litigation or further agreement of the parties. This mechanism serves as an important procedural safeguard, especially since there is no appeal proceeding or a second-instance panel or “appellate chamber” recognized under the Policy.
2. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”) is a concept based on para. 15(e) UDRP Rules which provides that, “[i]f after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.”
RDNH is an important safeguard against abuse by complainants and is therefore based on “bad faith”, without, however, UDRP Rules defining “bad faith” exhaustively. The UDRP Rules give two examples of what may constitute “bad faith”, namely i) the complaint has been brought forward “in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” or ii) “was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder”. Those examples are considered non-exhaustive and panels have also referred to paras. 3(b)(xiii) and (xiv) of the UDRP Rules in addressing possible RDNH scenarios.[6] However, mere lack of success or weak arguments presented by the complainant would not be sufficient grounds to establish a finding under RDNH. There needs to be abusive conduct by the complainant. It could be argued that RDNH is the mirror image of cybersquatting: instead of establishing respondent’s abusive conduct, the complainant abuses the UDRP process.
RDNH should usually be brought forward by the respondent. However, in instances where there is enough evidence on the record satisfying a finding of RDNH, panels can make the finding. Nevertheless, there is no consensus view on the latter. Some panels are reluctant to make a finding where the respondent did not make an RDNH request and others do so only when there is clear evidence for it.
<proto.com>[7]
In this case, the Panel denied the complaint concerning <proto.com> and made a finding of RDNH.
The Panel emphasized that the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name before the Complainant had filed any trademark application or established proven trademark rights and that given the fact that the Complainant was represented by counsel, it should have understood that the complaint could not succeed given the chronology of events.
This case clearly shows that some panels hold complainants to a higher standard when they are represented by counsel.
<nativestyles.net> et. al.[8]
Here the Panel considered that the dispute arose from a broader commercial conflict between the parties rather than a genuine case of cybersquatting. It found that the Complainant was attempting to use the UDRP as a tactical advantage in an existing business dispute, whereas the Policy is intended to address clear abusive domain name registrations, not complex commercial disagreements.
The Respondent requested RDNH, arguing that the complaint lacked evidence and was abusive. Even though the Panel was critical of the Complainant’s conduct, it did not share the Respondent’s view on the RDNH, noting that “[s]ome of [Respondent’s] evidence, such as references to his company name (in fact “inactive” and not registered until 2004), is misleading.” Accordingly, the Panel denied the complaint and a finding of RDNH.
3. Forum Shopping
Forum shopping usually refers to the practice of choosing the court or jurisdiction that has the most favorable rules or laws or where a more favorable outcome can be predicted for a certain case.[9] A party can forum shop when more than one court or forum has jurisdiction over the dispute, such as in the case of the UDRP disputes, as mentioned above.
More specifically, in the UDRP context, forum shopping is described when a complainant chooses the UDRP as a forum for its dispute instead of a competent court or other alternative dispute resolution forum, even though the dispute is a broader business dispute beyond the issue of assessing cybersquatting of the disputed domain name or when the complainant has chosen a specific UDRP provider in order to profit strategically from it (forum shopping among the UDRP dispute resolution providers).
The first scenario describes disputes that are outside of the scope of the UDRP, but the reason for choosing the UDRP regime is simple: the UDRP is cheaper, faster and more convenient in the sense that it does not go beyond the three requirements set out in para. 4(a) of the UDRP. Thankfully, panels recognize the attempt to forum shop and deny the complaint accordingly.[10]
The second scenario may arise when the same complainant chooses to re-file a case against the same respondent for the same disputed domain name. Refiled cases are allowed only under limited circumstances.[11] In Coffee Bean Direct LLC v Claude Pope,[12] the Complainant brought a second UDRP complaint over <coffeedirect.com> after an earlier WIPO complaint concerning the same domain name had already been denied in 2010. In the second case, the Complainant argued that the refiling was justified by new facts, namely the Respondent’s later renewal of the domain name and renewed sale-related communications after the first decision. The Panel treated the matter as a justified refiled complaint, but also noted that it was uncertain whether the grounds for refiling had been sufficiently articulated, since the only genuinely new facts appeared to be the Respondent’s renewal of the domain name and later sale-related conduct. At the same time, the Panel referred to this practice as forum shopping, taking a neutral stance by saying that this activity is not per se forbidden (at least not in that case). Nevertheless, the Complainant still failed on the merits.
A key takeaway from that decision is the Panel’s view that, even though forum shopping might not be forbidden or may occur, “all UDRP service providers (..) apply the same policy and the same rules; accordingly, a decision by a panel at one provider should not differ from a decision by a panel at a different provider. (The differences in the providers’ supplemental rules are primarily procedural, not substantive.) Thus, decisions issued by panelists at one provider are equally relevant to panelists at a different provider.”
The UDRP has been criticized for allowing room for forum shopping but there is no consensus on whether this amounts to a serious structural problem. In the context of the 25th anniversary of the Policy, WIPO, together with the Internet Commerce Association (“ICA”)[13] evaluated the Policy and published a report on a potential UDRP Review.[14] One of the comments to the initial report published for public consultation referred to the issue of forum shopping and argued that nearly one-third of past UDRP disputes had been filed in a manner suggestive of forum shopping behavior.[15] Whether the issue will be ultimately addressed in any future ICANN-led revision of the Policy remains to be seen.
II. Conclusion
In conclusion, the procedural framework of the UDRP is far from a purely technical backdrop; it is a dynamic and, at times, determinative dimension of the dispute resolution process. The issues discussed across both parts illustrate that procedural choices and interpretations often shape not only the conduct but also the outcome of proceedings, requiring panels to balance efficiency with fairness, and consistency.
At the same time, the procedural questions addressed here are by no means exhaustive, while the evolving nature of domain name disputes, driven by technological developments, changing online practices and increasingly sophisticated party strategies, will generate new procedural challenges in the future.
———————————————————————————————————————————
About the author:
Stefanie Efstathiou is a dual-qualified lawyer (Greece and Germany) specializing in Intellectual Property, AI, Data Protection and Alternative Dispute Resolution, with particular expertise in domain name disputes. She serves as in-house counsel at DENIC eG, the registry for .de domain names, and acts as a panelist for several domain name dispute resolution providers. Her academic and professional work lies at the intersection of technology and ADR, where she is also pursuing a PhD at the Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) in Munich on AI and Arbitration. In addition to her academic engagement, she also contributes as a member of an international task force developing guidelines on the use of AI in Arbitration, and regularly engages in conferences, professional networks, and publications in this field.
———————————————————————————————————————————
Editors: Mihaela Maravela (Maravela Legal) and Mihaela Apostol (ArbTech)
[1] UDRP, para. 4(k).
[2] Gerald M. Levine, Domain Name Arbitration (Second Edition, Legal Corner Press 2019), 621.
[3] More on disputes outside the scope of the UDRP: WIPO Overview 3.1, 4.14.6 and CAC Case No. 107286, Equiom Capital Invest Sp.zo.o v. Sabri Felix Can Denis Ansay, <canngo.org>, https://udrp.adr.eu/decisions/detail?id=67efcaf33a64472806070dcd.
[4] WIPO Case No. D2020-2446, The Croner Company v. DVLPMNT MARKETING, INC., <croner.com>, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2020/d2020-2446.html.
[5] Courts have held that filing a suit is not expressly defined in the Policy, however, it cannot create jurisdiction for a court to serve as an appellate body to the UDRP or “decisions made by international tribunals or administrative panels such as the WIPO” (see Junzhi Wang and another v TC Pharmaceutical Industries Co Ltd [2026] 4 MLRA 335 (CA, Putrajaya) https://www.elaw.my/JE/01/JE_2026_17.html.
[6] WIPO Overview 3.1, 4.16.; UDRP Rules, 3(b) (xiii): "(..) Complainant certifies that the information contained in this Complaint is to the best of Complainant's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument."; UDRP Rules, 3(b)(xiv): Annex any documentary or other evidence, including a copy of the Policy applicable to the domain name(s) in dispute and any trademark or service mark registration upon which the complaint relies, together with a schedule indexing such evidence.”
[7] WIPO Case No. D2006-0905, Proto Software, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc / PROTO.COM, <proto.com>, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0905.html.
[8] WIPO Case No. D2004-1081, Rudy Rojas v. Gary Davis, <nativestyle.net>, <nativestyle.org>, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-1081.html.
[9] David Weslow and Jan-Peter Ewert, Forum Shopping in Trademark Litigation: The U.S. and Europe Compared (2011) 66(9) INTA Bulletin,https://www.wiley.law/media/publication/116_Weslow--INTABulletin--05_01_11.pdf.
[10] David Taylor and Adam H. B. Tang, UDRP Is Not a Convenient Recourse for Business Disputes, (2017)World Trademark Review, https://www.hoganlovells.com/~/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/udrp-is-not-convenient-recourse-for-business-disputes.pdf.
[11] WIPO Overview 3.1., 4.18.
[12] CAC Case No. 100654, Coffee Bean Direct LLC v. Claude Pope, <coffeedirect.com>, https://udrp.adr.eu/decisions/detail?id=62fada8d285f4a1fec0e6a5a.
[13] Founded in 2006, the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) is a non-profit trade organization representing domain name investors, website developers and related companies.
[14] FINAL REPORT OF THE WIPO-ICA UDRP REVIEW PROJECT TEAM (December 2025), https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/wipo-ica-final-udrp-review-report_dec2025.pdf.
[15] Vinny Adjibi, Comments on the Initial Report of the WIPO-ICA UDRP Review Project Team (June 2025) https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/commentsjune27-13.pdf; Vinny Adjibi, Athanasios Avgetidis, et.al., Repairing Trust in Domain Name Disputes Practices: Insights from a Quarter-Century’s Worth of Squabbles (NDSS Symposium 2026, San Diego, February 2026), https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2026-s174-paper.pdf.
