Abstract

     Since late 1999 more than 3,000 quasi-arbitral proceedings have been conducted to address disputes involving Internet domain names. These proceedings are governed by the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). A UDRP proceeding is instituted by a trademark owner who wishes to challenge a domain name. If the UDRP panel orders that the domain name should be transferred to the trademark owner, that order will be implemented unless the domain name registrant promptly commences a lawsuit against the trademark owner. Apart from this provision for external judicial review, there is no appeal mechanism within the UDRP.
     Domain name registrants have taken advantage of the right to seek judicial review in a small but significant number of cases. At least two U.S. courts thus far have held that they are not bound by UDRP decisions, although the legal effect of these decisions remains unclear. Courts normally apply an extremely deferential standard of review to arbitration decisions. As this Article will explain, however, courts should be very hesitant to place much reliance on the conclusions of UDRP panels.
     Part I of this Article discusses the scope of judicial review of arbitration decisions generally. Part II describes ICANN's UDRP process, including some of the major differences between UDRP proceedings and conventional arbitration. Part III examines the experience to date of courts that have addressed disputes subject to parallel UDRP proceedings. Finally, in Parts IV and V, the Article discusses substantive and procedural objections following UDRP decisions in legal proceedings, and concludes that a de novo standard of review is warranted.