All,

 

In advance of our call today, please see the attached.  In sum, it is not clear why these came up in a search on the provider’s website for “delay” as the term was not in any of the cases (I have re-run the search several times, and had a colleague do the same, including in different browsers).

 

In either event, some of the cases were filed the same month as the DDN was registered, and the longest stretch was one year.

 

None of these would not fall into what would be considered a “delay” in filing type scenario.

 

In fact, on reflection, given that new gTLDs have launched from 2014 to the present, it is difficult to make a case for invoking the “delay” doctrine at all in URS cases so far. 

 

I suggest this is a useful data point for our consideration.

 

Brian

 

Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham@wipo.int | www.wipo.int

 

World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.