In this case study video, I discuss the largest case so far in 2021 under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which was filed by The Clorox Company and involved 367 domain names.
As I explain, one of the more interesting issues it raises relates to consolidation, or whether it’s appropriate to include multiple domain names in a single UDRP proceeding where the domain names are held by different registrants.
As I’ve discussed in other videos (including episode 9 of my masterclass on domain name disputes) the UDRP specifically says that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.” And where the registrant names differ, panels look to other factors to determine whether one domain-name holder is ultimately responsible for all of the domain names.
That’s exactly what happened in the Clorox case, with Clorox arguing for consolidation, an argument that convinced the Panel. Here’s what the Panel said:
[I]t would be more procedurally efficient to have the 367 disputed domain names dealt with at the same procedure, given that the disputed domain names were registered within a period of 3 months, sharing the same naming pattern, Registrar, same area code, while indicating physical addresses that do not point to a verifiable location.
This Panel is satisfied, in view of the evidence submitted and on balance that the disputed domain names are indeed subject to a common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties.
This type of consolidation is incredibly efficient for trademark owners. Unfortunately, privacy and proxy services, as well as the European Union’s GDPR or General Data Protection Regulation, make consolidation more difficult. When I filed the largest UDRP complaint that has ever been filed, for more than 1,500 domain names back in 2009, cybersquatters were not as easily able to hide their identities as they can do today.
Still, when trademark owners can consolidate multiple domain names in a single UDRP case, they have a real opportunity, like Clorox, to clean up one big cybersquatting mess all at once.
