In this case study video, I discuss how Columbia University filed and won a complaint for the domain name <columbia-university.com> under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
As I explain in the video, just because a domain name contains the name of a college or university does not necessarily mean that the domain name is related in any way to an educational institution. Fortunately, domain name dispute policies such as the UDRP allow schools to enforce their rights against cybersquatters just like any other trademark owner.
In this case, Columbia — the prestigious and well-known university in New York City — filed a UDRP complaint against the registrant of <columbia-university.com>, apparently a person in Romania.
Columbia uses the domain name <columbia.edu>, which was actually among the first domain names that was ever created, all the way back in 1985. The .edu top-level domain (TLD) is restricted, which means that (unlike popular generic or global TLDs such as .com, .net, and .org), only certain entities are eligible to register a .edu domain name.
But some educational institutions also register other domain names, such as in .org and even .com, which means that it can sometimes be impossible to know for sure whether a non-.edu domain name is an official website.
According to the UDRP decision, the registrant of <columbia-university.com> used it to redirect traffic to web pages that advertised unrelated products and services and offered it for sale for $2,888. The UDRP panel found that the registrant’s actions constituted bad faith under three parts of the UDRP:
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP says that bad faith arises when a registrant uses a domain name “for commercial gain… by creating a likelihood of confusion,” which the panel said was present here because the registrant redirected the domain name to other websites that offered unrelated products and services.
Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the UDRP says that bad faith arises when a registrant’s primary purpose in registering the domain name is to sell it “for valuable consideration in excess of [its] documented out-of-pocket costs,” which the panel said was present here given that the registrant offered to sell the domain name for $2,888.
Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the UDRP says that bad faith arises when a registrant has “engaged in a pattern of… conduct” targeting trademark owners, and in this case Columbia apparently cited eight UDRP cases lost by the same registrant.
An important lesson in this case is to remember that it’s not just for-profit business that are being targeted by cybersquatters. Colleges and universities, and even many primary and secondary schools, are or may be trademark owners themselves. Which means that they can use the UDRP to stop cybersquatters who may be targeting their students and prospective students, their alumni, their faculty and staff, their vendors and others.
