In this case study video, I discuss the critical nature of deadlines in proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and I discuss one case in which a domain name registrant’s requested extension was denied.
Because a complaint under the UDRP can be filed by a trademark owner at any time, the most important deadline in any proceeding is the time in which a domain name registrant or accused cybersquatter has to file a response.
Three UDRP Rules specifically address this issue:
Rule 5(a) says that a response must be submitted “[w]ithin twenty (20) days of the date of commencement of the administrative proceeding,” which typically means the date on which the UDRP service provider (such as WIPO or the Forum or one of the other providers) submits the complaint to the domain name registrant.
Rule 5(b) of the UDRP gives a Respondent, or domain name registrant, the right to request an extension of four calendar days to submit its response, and the Rule makes clear that “[T]he Provider shall automatically grant the extension and notify the Parties thereof.”
Rule 5(e) allows for additional extensions, although they are within the discretion of the UDRP provider and are not automatically granted. Specifically, this Rule says that a Respondent may request an extension to file a response “in exceptional cases” or “by written stipulation between the Parties.”
In addition, WIPO is currently granting additional extensions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Still, not all deadline extension requests are granted. As I discuss in this video, in Marc John Randazza v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1248477621 / Don Juravin, WIPO Case No. D2020-3041, the domain name registrant requested a 30-day extension. In its decision, the panel wrote:
The Panel first notes that at various times… the Respondent wrote to the Center asking for more time, but no Response was ever filed, nor was counsel for the Respondent ever named (one communication said “our expert is not available now”) or copied; the Panel notes in particular in that regard that the Parties have encountered each other before in legal disputes. The Panel considers therefore that the requests for an extension were likely motivated by an attempt to delay, and that the Respondent has had a fair opportunity to advance any facts and arguments he may have in the instant proceeding but has not availed himself of this.
So, the bottom line is this: A response to a UDRP complaint is due within 20 days, although a 4-day extension may be granted upon request, and further extensions are possible, especially right now because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but unexplained requests for lengthy delays are usually not granted. Which means that even with these slight delays, the UDRP remains an incredibly efficient domain name dispute policy for trademark owners.
