In this case study video, I discuss why an increasing number of decisions under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) identify the domain name registrant as "Name Redacted."
As I explain in this case, involving the domain name <lennarcorporation.com>, the respondent falsely identified itself as an employee of the complainant when it registered the domain name, which the UDRP panel recognized as "potential identity theft." Therefore, the panel ordered that this wrong name be redacted, or withheld, from publication of the decision.
Specifically, the decision says:
Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party (a human resources manager for Complainant) when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case.
In other words, publishing a fake name in the decision for the domain name registrant — a name that corresponds to an employee of the complainant — would serve no purpose other than to falsely accuse an innocent person of being a cybersquatter. Which is why the published decision in this case includes “Name Redacted” in lieu of an actual name.
This is not an unusual outcome, as I discuss in the video. As of this recording, 273 decisions at WIPO list “Name Redacted” as a respondent.
What can trademark owners learn from this case and similar UDRP decisions? If nothing else, these cases are a stark reminder that cybersquatters often employ multiple tricks to hide their true identities. But trademark owners should also know that when they identify an obviously false name for a registrant, especially where that name might be associated with identity theft, they can request that the fake name be redacted from the decision, because publication would only cause further harm.
