Domain name attorney Doug Isenberg of GigaLaw talks about the unusual remedy of “cancellation” (instead of “transfer”) in decisions under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
A trademark owner can choose when filing a complaint whether it wants to have the domain name transferred or cancelled. After a domain name has been cancelled, it will become available for registration again by anyone. For this reason, cancellation seems like a poor remedy for a UDRP case.
– Maersk Drilling A/S v. James Pata, WIPO Case No. D2020-2105 (cancellation of maerskdrilling.energy): https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=49552
– Virgin Enterprises Limited v. “Richards Branson,” WIPO Case No. D2020-2996 (cancellation of virginverizonwireless.com): https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2020-2996
GigaLaw website: https://giga.law/
Domain Name Disputes: A Masterclass: https://giga.law/masterclass
About Doug Isenberg: https://giga.law/about-doug-isenberg
0:00 – Introduction
0:42 – Cancellation is uncommon
1:13 – What the UDRP says
1:46 – Transfer as a remedy
2:40 – Cancellation as a remedy
3:23 – Why cancellation is a poor choice
5:46 – Two trademarks in one domain name
6:45 – To learn more
Disclaimer: This video is for general informational purposes only, provides only a summary of specific issues, and is not intended to be and should not be relied upon as legal advice regarding any specific situation. This video is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Viewers should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws, policies or decisions and other topics discussed in this video apply to the viewers’ specific circumstances. This video may be considered attorney advertising under court rules of certain jurisdictions. Copyright © 2021 Douglas M. Isenberg