Chapter 6: Procedural issues
Restricted access

UDRP panels frequently cite prior decisions as precedents. Such decisions are not binding but generally are influential. The applicable standard of proof is “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of evidence,” that is, that it is more likely than not that an alleged fact is true. Panels are unlikely to make inferences in favor of a party if the party’s allegations are unsupported to credible evidence. Failure of a respondent to respond to a UDRP complaint is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s allegations are true, but failure to respond to a complainant’s demand letter may amplify the effect of such failure to respond. The use of a privacy service for registration of a disputed domain name is not of itself evidence of bad faith, but bad faith may be inferred by the surrounding circumstances. Reverse domain name hijacking may be found if a complainant blatantly disregards established UDRP Policy precedent.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Other access options

Redeem Token

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institutional Access

Personal login

Log in with your Elgar Online account

Login with your Elgar account