Domain disputes and arbitration under the UDRP: Legal issues and new (old) challenges

In this article, we delve into a comprehensive study of the legal nature of proceedings regulated by the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Our aim was to examine specific features of the UDRP legal regulation and to analyze its arbitration nature and legal problems arising in the process of its application. The pool of research materials included the texts of the UDRP and UDRP Rules, ICANN documents, analytical studies, as well as judicial and arbitration practice. Formal legal and comparative legal methods were used. Arguments in favor of qualifying proceedings under the UDRP as a type of arbitration (arbitration proceedings), despite the absence of a classic arbitration clause, are presented. The mechanism for agreeing the parties’ intention to refer the dispute to an ICANN-accredited arbitration center through an agreement with the registrar and the filing of a respective complaint is examined. In addition, the issues involved with the arbitrability of domain disputes and the relationship between the UDRP and national courts are discussed, as well as the structure of the DNS system and the powers of ICANN. Particular attention is paid to criticism of the UDRP, including such aspects as the bias of accredited arbitration centers in favor of trademark owners, the lack of appeal review, procedural restrictions, issues of the language of proceedings, and the inability to sanction unscrupulous applicants. The conclusion is made that despite the procedural features that distinguish UDRP from classical arbitration, this dispute resolution model has all the characteristics of extrajudicial private law (alternative) proceedings. The results obtained allow us to classify the UDRP procedure as arbitration and consider this procedure a significant example of an effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism adapted to the digital environment.

1. Aleshukina, S. A. (2017). Pryamye soglasheniya — novella zakonodatel’stva ob arbitrazhe (treteyskom razbiratel’stve) [Direct agreements — novella of the legislation on arbitration]. Vestnik Tverskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya: Pravo, (2), 31–35.

2. Cortés Diéguez, J. P. (2008). An analysis of the UDRP experience — Is it time for reform? Computer Law and Security Report, 24(4), 2008, 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2008.05.002

3. Eremin, V. V. (2019). Podkhody k opredeleniyu arbitrabel’nosti: sootnosheniye arbitrabel’nosti, podvedomstvennosti i kompetentsii [Approaches to arbitrability determination: Arbitrability, jurisdiction and competence correlation]. Aktual’nyye Problemy Rossiyskogo Prava, (8), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.58741/23134852_2024_4_13

4. Evteeva, E. V. (2024). Obzor sudebnoy praktiki v sfere domennykh imen: tendentsii i problemy [Review of judicial practice in the field of domain names: trends and problems]. Zhurnal Suda po Intellektual’nym Pravam, (4), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.58741/23134852_2024_4_13

5. Froomkin, M. A. (2002). ICANN’s “Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy” — Causes and (partial) cures. Brooklyn Law Review, 67(3), 605–718.

6. Geist, M. (2002). Fair.com? An examination of the allegations of systemic unfairness in the ICANN UDRP. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 27(3), 903–938.

7. Golubev A. E. (2022). Sushchestvuyushchiye mekhanizmy rassmotreniya i razresheniya domennykh sporov [Existing mechanisms for consideration and resolution of domain disputes]. Zhurnal Suda po Intellektual’nym Pravam, (1), 118–125.

8. Kazachenok, S. Yu. (2013). Arbitrazhnye ogovorki na strazhe realizatsii printsipa gibkogo razresheniya vneshneekonomicheskogo spora [Arbitration clauses to guard the principle of flexible foreign trade dispute resolution]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya 5: Yurisprudentsiya, (1), 72–75.

9. Kelley, P. D. (2002). Emerging patterns in arbitration under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 17(1), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38K39R

10. Krobka, N. N. (2020). Deyatel’nost’ VOIS po razresheniyu sporov v sfere intellektual’noy sobstvennosti [WIPO intellectual property dispute resolution activities]. Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federal’nogo universiteta imeni V. I. Vernadskogo. Yuridicheskie Nauki, 6(1), 334–349.

11. Loboda, A. I. (2019). Tolkovaniye arbitrazhnogo soglasheniya v prave Rossii [Interpretation of arbitration agreement in Russian law]. Treteyskiy Sud, (1/2), 179–201.

12. Loboda, A. I. (2020). Prodolzheniye obsuzhdeniya problemy: Izmeneniya v podkhode k tolkovaniyu arbitrazhnogo soglasheniya v prave Rossii [Continuing the discussion of the problem: Changes in the approach to the interpretation of the arbitration agreement in the law in Russia]. Treteyskiy Sud, (1/2), 363–372.

13. Nathenson, I. S. (1997). Showdown at the domain name corral: Property rights and personal jurisdiction over squatters, poachers and other parasites. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 58(4), 911–990.

14. Rozeeva, A. R. (2016). Rossiyskaya praktika rasprostraneniya arbitrazhnogo soglasheniya na tret’ikh lits [Russian practice of extending arbitration agreements to third parties]. Aktual’nyye Problemy Gumanitarnykh i Estestvennykh Nauk, (7-2), 58–63.

15. Rozhkova, M. A. (2018). Prava na domennoe imya [Rights to domain name]. In M. A. Rozhkova (Ed.), Pravo v sfere Interneta [Law in the sphere of the internet] (pp. 195–223). Statut.

16. Rozhkova, M. A., & Kopylov, S. A. (2022). Domennye imena: napravleniya sovershenstvovaniya pravovogo regulirovaniya [Domain names: Directions for improvment of legal regulation]. Zhurnal Suda po Intellektual’nym Pravam, (2), 99–113.

17. Rozhkova, M. A., Eliseev, N. G., & Skvortsov, O. Yu. (2008). Dogovornoye pravo: soglasheniya o podsudnosti, mezhdunarodnoy podsudnosti, primiritel’noy protsedure, arbitrazhnoye (treteyskoye) i mirovoye soglasheniya [Contract law: Agreements on jurisdiction, international jurisdiction, mediation, arbitration and settlement agreements]. Statut.

18. Ruje, N. (2018). Spory o domennykh imenakh: vybor mezhdu chastnymi procedurami (UDRP i prochimi) i razbiratel’stvom v gosudarstvennom sude [Domain name disputes: Choosing between private procedures (UDRP and Others) and proceedings before state courts]. In M. A. Rozhkova (Ed.), Pravo v sfere Interneta [Law in the sphere of the internet] (pp. 495–502). Statut.

19. Sergo, A. G. (2023). Vnesudebnoe razreshenie domennykh sporov: mirovaya praktika i otechestvennye perspektivy [Extrajudicial domain dispute resolution: World practice and domestic prospects]. Zhurnal Suda po Intellektual’nym Pravam, (2), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.58741/23134852_2023_2_128

20. Skvortsov, O. Yu. (2017). Arbitrazh (treteyskoye razbiratel’stvo) v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: Uchebnik [Arbitration (commercial arbitration) in the Russian Federation: Textbook]. Yurayt.

21. Skvortsov, O. Yu., Savransky, M. Yu., & Sevastyanov, G. V. (Eds.). (2018). Mezhdunarodnyy kommercheskiy arbitrazh [International commercial arbitration] (2nd ed.). Statut.

22. Snow, N. (2005). The constitutional failing of the Anticybersquatting act. Willamette Law Review, 41(1), 1–84.

23. Terent’eva, L. V. (2020a). Arbitrazhnye ogovorki v soglasheniyah s uchastiem potrebitelya [Arbitration clauses in agreements involving consumers]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshej Shkoly Ekonomiki, (2), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2020.2.28.44

24. Terent’eva, L. V. (2020b). Pravovaya priroda arbitrazhnykh tsentrov, rassmatrivayushchikh spory po procedure UDRP [Legal nature of UDPR arbitration centers]. Actual Problems of Russian Law, 15(9), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2020.118.9.131-149

25. Titov I.E. (2025). Iskovyye trebovaniya v domennykh sporakh: sravnitel’no-pravovoye issledovaniye rossiyskogo i germanskogo pravovykh podkhodov [Statements of claim in domain disputes: Comparative law research of Russian and German legal approaches]. Zhurnal Suda po Intellektual’nym Pravam, (1), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.58741/23134852_2025_1_14

26. Ware, S. J. (2002). Domain-name arbitration in the arbitration-law context: Consent to, and fairness in, the UDRP. Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law, 6, 145–179.

27. Woodard, E. C. (2009). The UDRP, ADR, and arbitration: Using proven solutions to address perceived problems with the UDRP. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 19(4), 1169–1213.

28. Yakushev, M. V., Rozhkova, M. A., & Afanas’ev, D. V. (2017). O pravovoy prirode al’ternativnykh razbiratel’stv domennykh sporov [On the legal nature of alternative proceedings in domain name disputes]. Vestnik Mezhdunarodnogo Kommercheskogo Arbitrazha, (1), 173–179.