Decision reversed on appeal — Cybersquatting dispute

Appeals panel disagrees with initial panel’s finding.

Some have suggested that UDRP complaints ought to be appealable directly with the organizations that hear the cases (rather than via lawsuits). Similar cybersquatting dispute mechanisms by now provide a way to appeal, and it’s instructive to examine how these appeals are utilized.

An example is the appeals mechanism for .uk domains under the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS).

The firm that appeals writes the grounds for its appeal, and the other party can submit a similar filing. Notably, they aren’t allowed to submit fresh evidence or annexes. In other words, the appeal is merely arguing that the first panel erred in its decision based on the record.

This month, a Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) panel overturned (pdf) a decision by a prior panel.

The case pitted The Ritz Hotel in London against Ritz Executive Cars Ltd, which provides car services using the domain ritzexecutivecars.co.uk.

The original panelist denied the case, writing, “I consider that the Complainant’s evidence is insufficient to satisfy me that the Respondent’s activities did confuse or were likely to confuse people as to the trade origin of the Respondent’s services or otherwise to cause damage to the Complainant’s business.”

The fresh panel disagreed with this reasoning and ordered the domain transferred.

While DRS is different from UDRP, it’s worth noting that under UDRP, this case might be denied since it’s more of a trademark dispute than a cybersquatting dispute. The domain registrant has used this domain for 15 years for its business, and it’s regarding to lose the domain name.