Changes

==Request for ICANN Investigation on UDRP Decisions==

==Request for ICANN Investigation on UDRP Decisions==

On February 2012, the Internet Commerce Association ([[ICA]]) sent a letter to ICANN requesting for an immediate investigation regarding the UDRP arbitration practices of the [[National Arbitration Forum]] (NAF) due to its recent ruling on two cases.<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref> <ref>[http://domainincite.com/ica-demands-probe-of-shoddy-udrp-decisions/ ICA demands probe of “shoddy” UDRP decisions]</ref> The first case was the Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman, wherein NAF ruled the transfer of the domain name hardwareresources.org to the complainant due to its argument that the domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark HR Hardware Resources and the defendant failed to respond to the complaint.<ref>[http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1423229.htm NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION

On February 2012, the Internet Commerce Association ([[ICA]]) sent a letter to ICANN requesting for an immediate investigation regarding the UDRP arbitration practices of the [[National Arbitration Forum]] (NAF) due to its recent ruling on two cases.<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref> <ref>[http://domainincite.com/ica-demands-probe-of-shoddy-udrp-decisions/ ICA demands probe of “shoddy” UDRP decisions]</ref> The first case was the Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman, wherein NAF ruled the transfer of the domain name hardwareresources.org to the complainant due to its argument that the domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark HR Hardware Resources and the defendant failed to respond to the complaint.<ref>[http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1423229.htm NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman}</ref>

Hardware Resources, Inc. v. Yaseen Rehman}</ref>

ICA argued that the NAF examiner failed to check the complainants USPTO filing wherein each relevant trademark were accompanied with the statement '''"NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "HARDWARE RESOURCES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN,"''' which  means that the complainant has no right to the generic term  hardware resources. ICA pointed out that NAF should have dismissed the complaint and ruled that it was filed in bad faith and an attempted act of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under Paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP Rules.<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

ICA argued that the NAF examiner failed to check the complainants USPTO filing wherein each relevant trademark were accompanied with the statement '''"NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "HARDWARE RESOURCES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN,"''' which  means that the complainant has no right to the generic term  hardware resources. ICA pointed out that NAF should have dismissed the complaint and ruled that it was filed in bad faith and an attempted act of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under Paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP Rules.<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

The second case in question was the Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Nokta Internet Technologies wherein the domain name autoownersinsurance.com  was transferred to the complainant. NAF ruled that the respondent lacks rights or has no legitimate interest to the disputed domain, which is confusingly similar to the complainants mark and the domain name was previously used by the respondent in bad faith. <ref>[http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1423534.htm NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Nokta Internet Technologies / DNS Admin]</ref> ICA argued that the second case is an example of gross procedural unfairness under NAF Supplemental Rules, which is in conflict with ICANN's UDRP Policy. <ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

The second case in question was the Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Nokta Internet Technologies wherein the domain name autoownersinsurance.com  was transferred to the complainant. NAF ruled that the respondent lacks rights or has no legitimate interest to the disputed domain, which is confusingly similar to the complainants mark and the domain name was previously used by the respondent in bad faith. <ref>[http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1423534.htm NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Nokta Internet Technologies / DNS Admin]</ref> ICA argued that the second case is an example of gross procedural unfairness under NAF Supplemental Rules, which is in conflict with ICANN's UDRP Policy. <ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

According to ICA Counsel [[Phil Corwin]], ''"NAF’s administration of the UDRP in the cases cited above appears to be seriously flawed and creates the appearance of substantial bias and ineptitude. ICANN has a responsibility to make serious inquiry into this matter and to take remedial action based upon its findings"''<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

According to ICA Counsel [[Phil Corwin]], ''"NAF’s administration of the UDRP in the cases cited above appears to be seriously flawed and creates the appearance of substantial bias and ineptitude. ICANN has a responsibility to make serious inquiry into this matter and to take remedial action based upon its findings"'' <ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/NAF_UDRP_FAIL ICANN Should Investigate NAF’s UDRP Practices]</ref>

==References==

==References==