Fellow RPM colleagues, I have provided some supplemental information below on URS Proposal #6, in response to the feedback provided by working group members on our Monday, September 17th teleconference meeting. For ease of reference, proposal #6 is available in PDF at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-6.pdf... I hope this is helpful in clarifying the nature and purpose of the proposal; if there are any additional questions, please let me know at your convenience. Thanks and have a great weekend! Best regards, Claudio ---- *Description of Proposal* "The recommendation is to permit multiple unrelated complainants to bring a single complaint jointly against a single domain name registrant (or related registrants) who has registered multiple domain names, by deleting the following procedural element within Section 1.1.3 of the URS Procedure: "One Complaint is acceptable for multiple related companies against one Registrant, but only if the companies complaining are related" *Supplemental Information* The basis of the proposal is to harmonize the UDRP and URS mechanisms on this element of the complaint. The intended benefits are to: 1) create efficiencies; 2) enhance the utility of the URS by allowing consolidation under appropriate circumstances; and 3) reduce the cost burdens on all parties, in a manner that promotes fairness. - On the respondent-side, registrants can avoid the need to respond to multiple complaints, which may be brought independently over an extended period of time. By allowing multiple complainants to bring a single complaint jointly, the respondent can raise their arguments and defenses in one consolidated action against multiple unrelated complainants, and have the case disposed in one action. - On the complaint-side, multiple complainants can bring a single complaint jointly against one registrant who has registered multiple domain names under a common occurrence or scheme. To be clear, there is no specific component of the proposal that is designed to allow unrelated complainants to join their complaints against one registrant who has registered multiple domain names "randomly" or without an underlying pattern to the registrations. *Rather, the proposal is designed to address the circumstance when* *a domain registrant registers multiple domain names targeting unrelated complainants under a common occurrence or scheme, as per existing UDRP jurisprudence*. For example, the proposal would apply to the scenario when a cybersquatting registrant targets multiple brands by registering hundreds of domain names in a single occurrence. The companies targeted by the registration abuse may bear no formal legal relationship with each other, but may be part of the same industry, market sector, or provide similar goods and services in the marketplace. Under the current URS rules, these companies are not permitted to bring a single complaint jointly against the single domain name registrant, but must each bring separate, independent complaints, because they are considered unrelated entities. *This outcome is not an efficient use of resources for anyone, including Providers, and is unjustified as a matter of policy.* *Existing UDRP Rules*: see "3(c), The Complaint" which states the following: "The complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder." see "10(e), General Powers of Panel, which states: "A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules." *Link to UDRP case law:* http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2013-0685 *London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), American Arbitration Association/International Center for Dispute Resolution (AAA/ICDR) v. ICSID Lawyers*, LLC, D2013-0685 (WIPO, June 21, 2013) Here is the relevant text from the *London Court of Arbitration* decision, which cites *Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc./ Official Tickets Ltd*, WIPO Case No. D2009-0331 as the basis of the holding. *6. Discussion and Findings * A. Multiple Complainants The Complaint is brought by 5 separate Complainants, each of which is a separate arbitral institution. In Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc./ Official Tickets Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2009-0331, the Panel outlined the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to permit a consolidated complaint involving multiple complainants and multiple domain names against a single domain name registrant to proceed. The relevant extract of that decision is below: “General Principles Applicable to Consolidation Under the UDRP In the National Dial A Word case (see supra), the panel held that the consolidation of multiple complaints in a single complaint should be permitted if the complainants: (i) have a common grievance against the respondent; and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation of complaints. With regard to the first limb of the test, to establish a common grievance against the respondent the panel in the National Dial A Word case held that multiple complainants must; (i) have a common legal interest in the trade mark rights on which the complaint is based; or (ii) be the target of common conduct by the respondent which has clearly affected their individual legal interests in a similar fashion. Instances where multiple complainants may establish a common legal interest would include where: (i) the multiple complainants have a shared interest in a trade mark, such as may exist between a licensor and a licensee; or (ii) the multiple complainants form part of a single entity such as where individual companies are part of a larger corporate group or joint venture; or (iii) the multiple complainants are members of an established association or league (such as a sporting association) in which individual members have rights authorized to be enforced by the association, both the association and the members should have standing to appear as multiple complainants in a consolidated complaint against a single respondent. If multiple complainants cannot establish a common legal interest sufficient to justify their consolidation in a single complaint, to satisfy the “common grievance” limb of the test the complainants must establish that the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected their individual rights in a similar fashion. Such common conduct may be found to exist: (i) where the rights relied on and the disputed domain names in question involve readily identifiable commonalities; or (ii) where there is a clear pattern of registration and use of all the disputed domain names in question. If the multiple complainants establish that a common grievance exists against the respondent then the panelist considered that the second limb of the test should be addressed: would it be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit consolidation of the complainants?” The Panel, in considering whether the present proceeding should be allowed, adopts the test outlined above. In the present proceeding the Complainants do not appear to have a common legal interest that has been affected by the Respondent's conduct, as they do not share trade mark rights. Each of the Complainants own and is seeking to protect its trade mark rights separately, not jointly with each other. However the Complainants have established that the Respondent has engaged in common conduct which has affected their legal rights in a similar fashion. Indications of such common conduct on the part of the Respondent include: (i) the fact that the Domain Names, with the exception of <stockholmarbitration.com> each consists of the name or acronym of a Complainant, usually with the word “arbitration” or “arbitrations” appended on the end; (ii) 14 of the 17 Domain Names were registered on the same date and all of them were registered with the same Registrar; and (iii) Each of the Domain Names currently or previously resolved to the Respondent’s Website, which points to a clear pattern of use of all the Domain Names for the same purpose. In the Panel's view it is equitable and procedurally efficient to permit consolidation of the Complainants' complaints because: (i) although each of the Complainants operates under its own trade mark and each of the Domain Names incorporates elements of each of the Complainants' differing trade marks, in effect the Respondent is using the Complainants' trade marks for the same purposes. Therefore, the commencement of separate proceedings by each of the Complainants in relation to an otherwise common complaint would be inefficient and unnecessary under the Policy; (ii) the Complainants' substantive arguments made under each of the three elements of the Policy are common to the Domain Names; (iii) all the Complainants are represented by a single authorized representative for the purposes of the proceedings; and (iv) the Complainants have clearly stipulated each Domain Name, the individual Complainant making a claim thereto, the rights relied upon by that Complainant, and the registrar with whom the Domain Name is registered. Any transfer, if found to be justified and ordered by the Panel, will be to the individual Complainant holding the corresponding trade mark. Accordingly the Panel determines that the Complainants should, for the reasons discussed above, be permitted to have their complaints consolidated into a single Complaint for the purpose of the present proceedings under the Policy. Overall this is clearly a case fitting within the “common conduct” category in which it would be equitable and fair to permit consolidation. On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 5:25 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear RPM colleagues,
This note is to provide the supplemental information that I promised to provide in response to the feedback on my URS proposal, available at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-6.pdf...
The proposal states the following:
"The recommendation is to permit multiple unrelated complainants to bring a single complaint jointly against a single domain name registrant (or related registrants) who has registered multiple domain names, by deleting the following procedural element within Section 1.1.3 of the URS Procedure: "One Complaint is acceptable for multiple related companies against one Registrant, but only if the companies complaining are related"
----
The basis of this proposal is to harmonize the UDRP and URS on this element of the complaint, which will create significant efficiencies and enhance the utility of the mechanism by consolidating the process in a manner that promotes fairness, e.g. respondents can avoid the need to respond to multiple independent complaints, but can raise their arguments and defenses in one consolidated action against multiple unrelated complainants. On the complaint-side, the ability for unrelated complainants to join their claims into one complaint against one registrant who has multiple domain names under a common occurrence or scheme.
To be clear, there is no component of the proposal that permits complainants to join their complaints against one registrant who has registered multiple domain names "randomly" or without an underlying connection or pattern. Rather, the proposal is designed to address the scenario when a single registrant registers multiple domain names under a common occurrence or scheme.
There are examples when a cybersquatting registrant targets brands for fraudulent purposes, by registering hundreds of domain names in a single occurrence. The companies targeted by the registration abuse will bear no formal legal relationship with each other, but rather are part of the same industry, market sector, or provide similar goods and services in the marketplace. Under the current URS, these trademark owners are unable to bring a single complaint jointly against the single domain name registrant, but must each bring separate, independent complaints. As a result, this increases the resources required to administer the disputes since the cases can not be consolidated.