(Update: After this blog post and video were published, I was made aware of a UDRP decision from 2017 in which the domain name was also redacted. Therefore, I have deleted my reference below to the 2022 case being the first time that this has occurred.)
In a nearly unprecedented move under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), a panel has redacted or removed the actual domain name from a published decision. This means that when you read the decision, it’s impossible to know what domain name was in dispute, even though the decision ordered the domain name transferred to the trademark owner who filed the complaint.
I discuss this unusual UDRP decision in a new video on YouTube.
According to the decision, which was published by the Forum in October 2022, the complaint was filed by someone (whose identity was also redacted) identified only as “a published author, artist and psychologist” in Australia against a domain name registrant in New York. The decision says that the domain name was used in connection with what the complainant called an “illicit/obscene website” and that it was “highly offensive, derogatory, defamatory, and harassing to Complainant.”
The UDRP panelist wrote that the complainant asked for her name, as well as the identity of the domain name itself, to be redacted because of concerns about privacy and safety.
Redacting some information from UDRP decisions is not without precedent. As I discuss in the video, hundreds of UDRP decisions through the years have redacted the name of the respondent or domain name registrant — usually because there is a credible allegation of identity theft.
Indeed, paragraph 4(j) of the UDRP allows for redactions in certain cases, specifically:
All decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.
On the one hand, this irregular redaction is a shame, because the UDRP is a very transparent process, with most panelists going to great lengths to ensure that decisions are well-reasoned and clear, which reinforces faith in the UDRP system itself. On the other hand, the facts in this case are clearly incredibly unusual.
I don’t expect this decision to start a trend or really have any impact on the UDRP because in most cases, my trademark owner clients want the disputed domain names to be published. But now we know that it may be possible in certain exceptional cases.
