Who should UDRP Respondents Choose as an UDRP Arbitrator?

Who should UDRP Respondents Choose as an UDRP Arbitrator?

When filing a domain name complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) created by ICANN, it can make a significant difference in the arbitrator panelist that you and your attorney choose to review and decide on your case.  Since the UDRP arbitration procedure is primarily on paper (no live testimony), you and your attorney should choose the right panelist carefully.  Knowing the background of panelist’s other decisions in cases is helpful knowledge when trying to decide the correct arbitration panelist to pick. Have they made decisions without supported reasoning or dismissed a case without any plausible reasons?  Also, it is important to pick a panelist based on subject matter.  Does the panelist have an extensive background in trademark law or internet law?

A recent article shows the listing of those WIPO panelist that have been selected as the ones that have denied more complaints than any other panelist.  Several of these panelist have even ruled that some of the cases fell under Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or that the complaint was filed in bad faith to harass the domain name holder.

Here are the top 5 panelist for two of the three Lists in this article:

Panel Top 5 for the last 6 months:

1. Hon. Neil Brown – 7 decisions – 1 RDNH

2. Andrew Lothian – 6 decisions – 1 RDNH

3. Richard Lyon – 6 decisions – 1 RDNH

4. Christopher Pibus – 5 decisions

5. Nicholas Smith – 4 decisions – 2 RDNH

 

Top 5 All-Time Panelist:

1. Hon. Neil Brown – 48 decisions (UP FROM #2)

2. Tony Willoughby – 41 decisions

3. Richard Lyon – 33 decisions

4. Brigitte Joppich – 25 decisions (UP FROM #5)

5. Frederick Abbott – 25 decisions (UP FROM #6)

 

Knowing both the decision track record and experience of the panelists does make a difference in who you decide to choose as your UDRP arbitrator panelist. Have your attorney do the research or ask to see if your attorney has knowledge or information on any of the panelist from other cases they have had before those panelists on other UDRP cases.