Two recent UDRP cases involving the same complainant and respondent have resulted in contrasting decisions, raising questions about the consistency of rulings within the policy framework.
The law firm Sullivan & Cromwell has initiated eight cases this year with FORUM to safeguard its domain name, SullCrom, while utilizing sullcrom.com for its online presence. Among these, two cases decided this month—against domains sullcrom-uk.com and sullcrom-ny.com—depicted widely varying outcomes.
In the Sullcrom-UK decision, panelist Charles A. Kuechenmeister assessed that Sullivan & Cromwell’s claims regarding the respondent’s lack of preparations or intention to use the domain for legitimate purposes were insufficient. He noted that there was no substantial evidence to demonstrate the absence of rights or legitimate interests from the respondent, stating:
"Complainant alleges that there is no evidence that Respondent has used or made any preparations to use the domain name… Without evidence of what a respondent is doing with a domain name, it is not possible to determine the presence or absence of a bona fide or legitimate use."
Consequently, the transfer request was denied.
Contrarily, in the Sullcrom-NY case, panelist Dawn Osborne took a different stance. She highlighted that the domain in question was not linked to an active website and asserted that mere passive holding did not meet the criteria for bona fide use. She referenced past rulings in supporting her conclusion, stating:
"The Domain Name is being passively held… Not using a Domain Name for an active website does not show a bona fide offering of goods or services."
As a result, the transfer of the domain was approved.
Despite both domains being registered simultaneously, the discrepancy in the outcomes highlights potential inconsistencies in UDRP applications. FORUM does not disclose detailed pleadings, obscuring whether identical arguments were presented in both cases.
Of the eight cases filed by Sullivan & Cromwell in the current year, only one has resulted in a loss, specifically against sullcromslawoffices.com, which is owned by an individual in Colorado. Interestingly, in that situation, while rights or legitimate interests were acknowledged for the law firm, the case was denied due to concerns regarding bad faith registration.
This series of rulings underscores the varied interpretations that UDRP panelists can apply in seemingly similar cases, drawing attention to the significant role that individual panelist history may play in determining outcomes.
Welcome to DediRock, your trusted partner in high-performance hosting solutions. At DediRock, we specialize in providing dedicated servers, VPS hosting, and cloud services tailored to meet the unique needs of businesses and individuals alike. Our mission is to deliver reliable, scalable, and secure hosting solutions that empower our clients to achieve their digital goals. With a commitment to exceptional customer support, cutting-edge technology, and robust infrastructure, DediRock stands out as a leader in the hosting industry. Join us and experience the difference that dedicated service and unwavering reliability can make for your online presence. Launch our website.