Domain Name Disputes Prior to the Adoption of
the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure
 
The explosive growth of the Internet over the years highlights the influential role it plays in shaping business strategies and decisions. As consumers continue to make more purchases online, retailers and other businesses have responded by shifting their focus towards the Internet and placing a greater emphasis on establishing a prominent web presence. An integral element in establishing this presence is being able to acquire an easily recognizable "domain name" or web address.
What is a domain name and why does anyone care? Every home and business has a geographical location. In order to ease the task of finding that location, it is represented by a street "address." Similarly, every web page has a location in cyberspace, on some "street" in the network of computers collectively called the Internet. This uniform resources locator (URL), or Internet Protocol (IP) address is represented by four groups of numbers, such as <123.45.67.89>.5 Of course, each IP address must be unique.6
Although numbers are fine, and in fact considered essential for computers, it is not commercially practical since it's a lot easier for humans to remember names of companies and trademarks, instead of a string of random numbers. Thus, numerical addresses have been designed to correspond to domain names or web addresses, such as yahoo.com, jcrew.com, microsoft.com, and uiowa.edu.
For marketing consistency, companies want domain names that are identical to their trademarks', logos, or company's name. However, businesses may find themselves faced with the stark reality that a desired domain name is no longer available. Furthermore, the only way to acquire it may be to purchase it from an individual who is demanding an outrageous price. Over the years many businesses were shocked to discover that they were not automatically entitled to their trademarks or logos when it came to domain names. In essence, any individual could acquire and use a particular domain, whether it was a trademark or a logo, after paying the nominal fee required for registration.
Initially, domain names were registered on a first-come, first-served basis through Network Solutions.7 Applicants for a domain name were allowed to choose any alphanumeric combination. Network Solutions' automated system checked to determine whether a particular name had been previously issued to another entity. If not, the applicant would acquire the domain name.8 The only registration restriction was a Network Solutions' requirement that applicants declare they were entitled to use the name, and that they did not plan to use the name for any unlawful purpose.9
Due to the overwhelming number of requests for domain names, independent verification of entitlement by Network Solutions was impossible. Furthermore, since nearly all domain name registrations were processed electronically, there was no effective check in place to prevent abuses.
Exploiting the inadequacies of this registration system, individuals would intentionally register domain names based on well-recognized trademarks, and then offer to sell these names to the rightful owners of the trademark for a hefty price. 10 Such individuals came to be called "cybersquatters."
Another form of domain name registration abuse was dubbed "cyberpiracy." Cyberpirates would intentionally register domain names with deliberately misspelled trademark names (e.g., such as microsof.com or yaho.com) in hopes of attracting web traffic intended for the named company.11  Both cybersquatters and cyberpirates recognized the enormous value of owning these domain names and would therefore attempt to register these names before the rightful trademark owner. Once acquired, they would then demand payment for the sale of the domain name for an amount less than litigation costs, but much more then they had paid.
Prior to 1999, legitimate businesses were left with a choice between expensive litigation (with no assurance of success) and acquiesce to the sellers' demands. Neither prospect was an appealing alternative.
To initiate litigation, a company would have to rely on traditional trademark law. This was expensive and the results lacked uniformity across the circuits.12 In order to succeed on a trademark claim, a plaintiff had to prove each element of a trademark infringement claim. One element, "consumer confusion," is virtually impossible to prove due to the legitimate uses of a domain name for other purposes, and the failure to establish this element can prove fatal to the claim. Another frequent problem encountered was locating and obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant. This requirement proved to be so problematic that many trademark owners were simply unable to initiate trademark infringement actions altogether.13 Finally, many businesses failed to register their trademark, thus removing this legal option entirely.
 
Adoption of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure
As the value and importance of domain names became imperative to a successful Internet operation, large number of disputes began to arise between rightful owners and speculators abusing the domain name registration system. It became obvious that an alternative mechanism needed to be adopted to resolve these problems since traditional trademark infringement law was inadequate in resolving these issues. In 1999, the Department of Commerce empowered the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), with oversight responsibility of the Internet domain name system.14 In conjunction with this authority, ICANN adopted the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) that primarily focused on resolving abusive registrations of domain names.15 The UDRP allows a complainant, who is the rightful owner of a trademark or service mark, to pursue a proceeding against a cybersquatter, cyberpirate, or other entity that currently possesses a disputed domain name.
The UDRP is an appealing alternative to traditional litigation since all proceedings take place online, the costs are minimal, and the whole process is completed in six to eight weeks.16 More importantly, the UDRP provides complainants with a means of acquiring jurisdiction over a defendant that might not otherwise be possible through traditional litigation. The only drawback to pursuing a UDRP action is the limited remedies available. A successful claim can result in either the cancellation or the transference of the disputed domain name; the UDRP does not permit damages to be awarded to an injured party.
 The UDRP is extremely effective since it requires nearly all domain name registrants to agree through contract to be bound by ICANN's policies, including a mandatory administrative proceeding if any third party files a complaint alleging a recognizable claim under the UDRP. 17 Since the UDRP rules apply to all top level domains (ending in .com, .net, .biz, .info, .org), more then 60 percent (or 21 million) out of the 35 million domain names in existence worldwide have a dot-com suffix, and would therefore be subject to mandatory administrative proceedings.18

Filing a Complaint under Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure
In order to bring a claim, the complainant must select one of the pre-approved dispute resolution providers approved by ICANN. Currently, there are four authorized domain name dispute providers: 1) eResolution, 2) the National Arbitration Forum, 3) World Intellectual Property Organization, and 4) CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution. Each of these providers adheres to the policies outlined by the UDRP, with the exception of slight variations in filing fees and requirements.
A complainant bringing a dispute before one of these panels should anticipate paying between $ 950 to $ 2000. These costs may incrementally increase depending on the number of domain names involved and whether the complainant requests that an individual or three-person panel hear the dispute. The complainant is responsible for all costs unless the complainant decides upon a one-member panel and the domain holder (referred to as the Respondent hereafter) requests a three-member panel. In these situations the two parties are required to split the costs equally.
Once a dispute provider has been selected, a complainant must provide the following information in his complaint to the panel: 1) the domain name(s) being challenged; 2) whether a single-member or three-member panel is preferred; 3) identify any trademarks or service marks on which the complaint is based; 4) how the respondent's (defendant's) domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark or service mark (required element); 5) explanation as to why the respondent (defendant) has no legitimate rights in the domain name (required element); 6) explain how the domain name was being used in bad faith (required element); 7) identify the particular remedy being sought by the complainant (transfer or cancellation of the domain name); and 8) agreement to submit to a jurisdiction in at least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction with respect to any challenges to the decision rendered in the present administrative proceeding.19
Each of the foregoing requirements must be presented within the complaint, in particular the three required elements, in order for a valid claim to exist. Complaints that have failed to prove each of the required elements have been denied relief in the past, even when a registrant failed to respond to the complaint altogether. 20
Once the complaint is filed, it is then forwarded to the respondent, marking the official commencement date of the proceeding.21  A respondent has 20 days to submit a detailed answer to the complaint's allegations and provide justifications as to why the respondent is entitled to the disputed domain name.22 If a respondent fails to answer the complaint, the administrative panel will usually make a determination based upon the facts presented in the complaint. Since the UDRP possesses the unilateral authority to strip a domain name, it's unlikely that legitimate domain name holders will refuse to reply to any allegations contained in a complaint.
Once a respondent has answered the complaint, an administrative panel will appoint a single-panelist within five days (different procedures are used when a three-member panel has been selected). After a panel has been appointed, it will analyze the evidence provided by the parties in ascertaining whether a domain name holder has acted in bad faith. In making its determination, the UDRP has identified four factors to be considered by the panel:

First: has respondent acquired the domain name with the primary purpose of "selling, renting, or otherwise transferring" it in excess of "documented out-of-pocket costs" to the trademark owner/complainant. (This provision is specifically aimed at deterring and preventing cybersquatters from capitalizing on their attempts to exploit valuable domain names);

Second: was the domain name registered with the primary purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor;

Third: has the domain name holder attempted to attract Internet users to their web sites by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant's mark as to the source, or affiliation for commercial gain. (This provision was adopted to specifically deter cyberpirates who attempt to capitalize on consumer confusion by intentionally misspelling prominent trademarks, logos or company names in an attempt to increase web traffic to their own sites).

Fourth: was the domain name registered to deliberately prevent the owner of a trademark or service mark from acquiring the mark for his own commercial purposes.

After considering these factors, a panel will normally make its determination, issue a final written decision outlining the merits of the case, and explain its decision. Within three days of receiving this decision, the provider will notify both parties of the final decision and forward the written opinion to them. If a decision requires cancellation or transfer of a disputed domain name, ICANN will wait ten business days in order to allow a losing party sufficient opportunity to prevent the adverse decision from taking effect. In order to prevent ICANN from implementing the final decision, a losing party must provide official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file stamped by the clerk of the court) that a lawsuit or other legal action has been commenced in a previously agreed upon jurisdiction. 23

Courts Reaction to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure
 Over the past year and a half, several courts have been asked to determine the amount of deference that they should give to UDRP decisions. Webber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware, 24 was the first case to specifically address this issue. The question presented to the court was whether an action currently before WIPO arbitrators (one of the four approved dispute resolution providers) would have any binding effect on the pending trademark infringement claim currently before the court. After reviewing the UDRP policy, and citing to its language allowing a party to a UDRP dispute to also pursue legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, the court concluded, "it [was] not bound by the outcome of the ICANN administrative proceedings." 25 The court then continued by stating, "[A]t this time we [also] decline to determine the precise standard by which we would review the panel's decision, and what degree of deference (if any) we would give that decision." 26
The erroneous belief that courts would still give some deference to the UDRP's administrative proceedings in the future was clearly over stated in light of a recent decision in Parsi v. Netlearning.27 Here the court was directly asked to determine whether mandatory administrative proceedings under the UDRP were deemed "arbitrations" subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). After a thorough analysis the court concluded that the "UDRP's unique contractual arrangement renders the FAA's provisions...inapplicable." 28 The court went on to conclude that no precedential value should be given to UDRP decisions since "nothing in the UDRP restrains either party from filing suit before, after or during the administrative proceedings." 29
Other cases involving similar questions also seem to support the Parsi decision that a court has no obligation to consider the conclusions reached by the arbitrators. In fact, two recent cases addressing domain name disputes originally brought under the UDRP fail to cite or even mention any of the proceedings that occurred before the arbitrators.30 This silence by the courts seems to indicate that these administrative proceedings are irrelevant altogether once legal proceedings have been initiated. Although there is no reason to believe that the "no deference" approach adopted by the courts will change; one must consider whether the courts are correct in its refusal to give any deference to these decisions.
The UDRP in all respects mirrors the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act passed by Congress (ACPA) in 1999. This act allows individuals in a civil action to pursue damages against any individual who has acquired a domain name with a "bad faith attempt to profit" from that mark.31 In order to bring a claim, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1) they own or possess rights to a mark that is a distinctive or famous mark; 2) that the domain name is "identical or confusingly similar to that mark," and ; 3) the defendant has acted with a bad faith intent to profit from the mark when it registered the domain name.32 The ACPA cites nine factors courts may consider in making its determination as to whether bad-faith intent exists. 33
After a thorough analysis comparing the ACPA and UDRP, it is apparent that both policies require a plaintiff to meet the same burden of proof, and that decision-makers in both proceedings are applying the same criteria in determining bad faith. The only real distinction that exists is that the ACPA permits plaintiffs to recover damages, whereas the only remedy available under the UDRP is the transfer or cancellation of a domain name.
Due to the similarities and shared objectives of the two policies, courts in the future should more closely examine the deference question and possibly articulate situations that would allow the administrative proceedings to be given greater deference. Although the ICANN is a quasi-private organization, its powers have been specifically delegated by the Department of Commerce to handle all issues relating to domain names. Therefore arguably, these mandatory administrative proceedings should be treated similarly to decisions made by federal agencies, which are currently given a great deal of deference by the courts. One possibility the courts should consider is estopping parties from denying statements of facts asserted in earlier administrative proceedings. Courts typically apply the estoppel principle to a variety of statements made before administrative bodies, and there is no reason why the courts could not also apply this principle to proceedings under the UDRP. Furthermore, in order to make these proceedings more responsive and potentially useful by the courts, courts should consider articulating errors that occurred in the earlier proceedings, thereby allowing arbitrators to immediately apply any new standards identified by the court.
By granting some respect and deference to these proceedings, the courts could go a long way in encouraging parties to first bring their dispute before ICANN's UDRP, freeing up their time to address more pressing issues. More importantly, a little deference by the courts would go along way in establishing the credibility of these proceedings, and would allow parties to have two viable alternatives to combat future cybersquatters.

Reasons for Selecting the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure
Instead of Traditional Litigation

As the rush to acquire domain names has escalated, so have the number of disputes. Many businesses are left with few alternatives since nearly all the top tier domain names have already been registered. The Denver Post recently reported that out of 25,500 possible words in a standard dictionary, less then 7 percent of these words have yet to be registered as a dot-com.34 Businesses realize that in order to succeed on the Internet, it is extremely important to have an easily identifiable web address, which will ultimately determine the success or failure of an Internet enterprise. Therefore, businesses have spared no cost in acquiring easy to remember domain names and have been willing to pay millions of dollars to purchase the rights to a particular domain name. 35
Instead of having to pay an enormous amount of money for a particular domain name, the UDRP provides parties to a domain name dispute with an inexpensive, user-friendly system, designed to quickly resolve simple domain name disputes within six to eight weeks.36 In the two years since the UDRP proceedings were adopted, prominent companies such as AOL, Alta-vista, Microsoft, Nike, Chrisitan Dior, Deutsche Bank and Reuters have all successfully brought challenges before the mandatory administrative proceedings.37 As of October 15, 2001, more than 4,500 domain name proceedings involving approximately 8,000 names have been resolved under the UDRP.38 In approximately 80 percent of these cases the complainant was successful in having the disputed domain name transferred or canceled.39  Although damages are not available to complainants bringing an action under the UDRP, the quick resolution of these disputes more than offsets the potential windfall that might otherwise be available through traditional litigation awarding damages. More importantly, companies that fail to win their dispute under the UDRP proceedings always have the option to file a subsequent lawsuit under ACPA.
Many companies have chosen the UDRP due to its ability to resolve the dispute within 6-8 weeks. This quick resolution allows companies to efficiently enforce their trademarks and company names against bad faith users, without having to wait the typical two years it takes for a litigation claim to make its way before the courts. The UDRP proceedings are also an extremely inexpensive alternative compared to the costs ordinarily associated with litigation.
Many companies are inclined to pursue a UDRP proceedings since it can potentially avert the long term damage that may be done by a cybersquatter's continued use of the domain name, resulting in further dilution or tarnishment of the company's trademark. As many experts correctly point out, even 6-8 weeks can be a long time to wait if a bad faith user is using your company's name to post pornography. 40 It is therefore clear why one would not choose ordinary litigation and wait the two years for the matter to be resolved when an enforceable decision can be made in 6-8 weeks.
Another important feature of the UDRP proceedings is its ability to acquire jurisdiction over bad faith users. This is achieved due to the contractual relationship that exists between ICANN and the domain name holder, requiring him to participate in a mandatory administrative proceeding involving a domain name. Frequently, a party wishing to bring a traditional civil claim challenging a domain name is unable to due to their inability to establish the necessary jurisdictional requirements required by the court. Establishing jurisdiction becomes impossible in these types of cases since the defendant frequently lacks the 'substantial contacts' or 'continuous and systematic relationship' with the state that is necessary in establishing jurisdiction.41 The UDRP proceedings are an extremely attractive alternative since the jurisdictional requirement is established through contract.
The only true shortcoming of the UDRP proceedings is its inability to handle emergencies that require immediate action. These emergencies arise whenever a company needs immediate relief due to the ongoing conduct of a cybersquatter that is inflicting substantial harm to his trademark or company's name. Since the UDRP lacks the necessary procedures to make an expedited decision in these situations, companies should seek immediate injunctive relief available only under the ACPA.42
 Companies continue to choose the UDRP proceedings as an effective and efficient way to combat cybersquatters and cyberpirates. In many ways the UDRP proceedings provide a win-win scenario for aggrieved parties since they are able to pursue an inexpensive alternative to resolve their disputes without waiting a couple of years for a final determination. On the other hand, if the company is dissatisfied with how the dispute is ultimately resolved in the UDRP proceeding, they may still pursue traditional litigation for their injuries. In some cases, parties are choosing to use the UDRP as a means to get the domain name immediately transferred, while later filing a ACPA claim in the courts in order to recover any damages that may have occurred. This was precisely the strategy employed in the Armitage case.
These mandatory administrative proceedings are achieving exactly what there were designed to achieve a means to combat against abusive registrants. Although the UDRP proceedings have made enormous strides in the past two years, a lot of work remains. A recent study by dotcom.com found that 41% of domain names that have been registered for over a year remain inactive or parked. 43 Many of these domain names are controlled by cybersquatters who would rather keep them inactive, then to risk losing them in a UDRP proceeding. By keeping these sites inactive, it becomes difficult for a complainant to show bad faith intent on behalf of the owner. Many owners of these parked domain names believe that a company will eventually contact them about selling the desired domain name. By sitting on their rights, these owners are unlikely to lose their rights and may still receive an inflated price for these domain names.
Regardless of its shortcomings, the UDRP proceedings have come a long way in deterring cybersquatters and cyberpirates from profiting on their extortionist tactics. Furthermore, the effectiveness and efficiency of the UDRP proceedings leads one to conclude that future efforts at creating any online dispute resolution system should be based upon the UDRP model.

Potential Economic Opportunities Resulting from the
Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure

 As more consumers make their purchases online, and companies continue to explore ways to resolve online disputes, future economic opportunities are becoming available for attorneys as companies begin to incorporate mandatory online dispute resolution clauses into their contracts. In order to capitalize on this potential market, a group of attorneys should form an online consulting business that exclusively handles clients involved in these types of online disputes (however, this consulting group would primarily focus on UDRP proceedings initially). For a flat up front fee (which would generally be determined by a percentage of any filing fees), this consulting group would draft and submit a complaint, or draft and submit a response to a complaint, on behalf of its clients. Typical law firms would shy away from these kinds of clients since the work involved would appear extremely time consuming for the limited amount of revenue that would be generated. Furthermore, many clients would be reluctant to hire a law firm due to the prohibitive costs that are frequently charged by firms. Frequently, such costs would serve as a deterrent to the complainant since lawyer fees would certainly have the potential to exceed the required filing fee to bring a particular action.
 By charging an up-front flat rate, these services would be extremely appealing to clients since it would allow them to anticipate their total costs in bringing an action. The market potential for this kind of service would also be enormous considering that in just under two years the UDRP proceedings have already handled over 4,500 disputes, or more importantly 9,000 potential clients. The key issue in creating a successful business would be our ability to establish a large customer base.
 Once the consulting group has successfully filled this niche and earned a well-respected reputation, it could then begin focusing its energies on establishing a variety of partnerships with litigation firms, as well as prominent corporations. First, the consulting group should focus its efforts on establishing an ongoing relationship with in-house counsels at a number of corporations where the consulting group would, free of charge, agree to police against any potential trademark violations, or potential cyberpirates. In exchange for these services, the corporation would agree to allow our consulting group to serve as its representative before the arbitration panel for our standard flat rate. The primary purpose in establishing these kind of relationships would be two-fold: first, it would create a much needed market share at no real expense to the consulting group; and secondly, it would begin to establish a mutually beneficial relationship, which would presumably attract other business.
Once the consulting group has successfully established these important relationships with prominent corporations, the consulting group would then begin to develop partnerships with litigation firms specializing in intellectual property disputes. The idea behind these relationships would be the creation of a mutual referral service with these firms, whereby the consulting group agrees to refer their prominent corporations that may have lost under the UDRP proceedings to the litigation firm. In exchange, the litigation firms would recommend their clients to use the consulting group as its representative before UDRP proceedings.
 Regardless of how one may choose to create a niche in representing these clients, the flat fee would certainly have broad appeal to clients that have selected these online alternative dispute providers as an inexpensive means to traditional litigation. An exhaustive search online revealed that no one is currently filling this niche, and with the increased use of the Internet by consumers, it is inevitable that more and more disputes will ultimately be resolved online. It is for these reasons why a consulting group specializing in online disputes has the potential to be enormously attractive to both consumers and corporations alike. A flat rate model for providing these services would make the most sense due to the sophistication of Internet users, and the sheer volume that would be involved in handling these disputes. More importantly, your potential client base would be unlimited, particularly in regards to domain name disputes since the UDRP proceedings have global implications. Instead of being limited to a consumer market of just thousands, this concept has the potential to reach a countless number of potential clients.
 Regardless of whether this particular concept would ever succeed or fail, one thing is certain - online dispute resolution is here to stay and with it comes enormous opportunities for those in the legal profession. 

1 See Nielsen//NetRatings (last modified Oct. 15, 2001) (According to estimates by Nielsen//NetRatings for the week ending October 7, 2001, the number of households in the United States with Internet access exceeds 170 million users) available at <http://pm.netratings.com/nnpm/owa/NRPublicReports.Usages>.
2  See Digitrends (last modified Oct. 15, 2001) (discussing the National Retail Federation, Forrester Research and Greenfield online monthly e-commerce retail index showing that U.S. consumers spent $2.8 billion Online in January of 2000) available at <http://www.digitrends.net/ebna/index_2146.html>.
3  See Boston Consulting Group Press Release (last modified Oct. 15, 2001) available at <http://www.bcg.com/media_center/media_press_release_subpage42.asp> (stating that most growth will take place in the leisure travel, grocery, and clothing categories).
4  See Lan Q. Hang, Online Dispute Resolution Systems: The Future of Cyberspace Law, 41 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 837, 845-51 (2001) (discussing the different dispute resolution systems now available on the Internet).
5  See Luke A. Walker, Intellectual Property: ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 15 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 289, 290 (2000) (explaining how the Internet protocol system works and the underlying purpose behind domain names).
6  Id.
7  See John G. White, Intellectual Property: Arbitration: ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy in Action, 16 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 229, 229 (2001) ((explaining how registration procedures worked initially under Network Solutions).
8  See Donna L. Howard, Trademarks and Service Marks and Internet Domain Names: Giving ICANN Deference, 33 ARIZ. ST. L..J. 637, 640 (2001) (explaining how Network Solutions issues domain names).
9  Id.
10 See White, supra note 7, at 230 (distinguishing the difference between cybersquatters and cyberpirates).
11 Id.
12 See Elke Flores Suber & Michael Cukor, Whose Cyberspace is it Anyway? Several Forms for Ending Domain Name Disputes, METROPOLITAN CORP. COUNS., Sept. 2001, at 18.
13 Id.
14  See Howard, supra note 8, at 655-56 (explaining how ICANN came into existence and its authority in overseeing the domain name system).
15 See Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, General Information, (visited Oct. 16, 2001) at <http://www.icann.org/udrp/>. See also Raysman & Brown, supra note 6, at 3 (discussing the underlying purpose behind the adoption of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy); Robert A. Badgley, Internet Domain Names and ICANN Arbitration: the Emerging Law of Domain Name Custody Disputes, 5 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 343, 350-354 (2001) (presenting reasons supporting the adoption and implementation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy).
16 Id.; see also See Richard Raysman & Peter Brown, Domain Name Litigation - Exclusivity, Finality and Deference, N.Y. L.J., June 6, 2001, at 3 (discussing the underlying purpose behind the adoption of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy).
17 See Howard, supra note 8, at 655-56 (explaining how ICANN's dispute resolution policy uses contract law to bind registrant to mandatory arbitration proceedings pertaining to registered domain name).
18 See Andy Vuong, 'Dot-coms' have company New domain names will help make room for start-ups, DENV. POST, Jan. 29, 2001, at C1 (citing the number of domain names that end in the suffix dot-com).
19 ICANN UDRP policies.
20 See Suber & Cukor, supra note 12, at 18 (articulating the necessity of establishing each of the three required elements before a complaint is considered valid).
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6335 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
25 Id. at 7.
26  Id.
27 139 F. Supp. 745, 751(E.D.Va 2001).
28 Id.
29 See Parisi v. Netlearning, 139 F. Supp. 745, 751(E.D.Va 2001).
30 See Strick Corp. v. Strickland, 2001 WL 1018372 (E.D. Pa. 2001); Referee Enterprises v. Planet Ref, (U.S.D.C. E.D. Wis. 2001).
31 See Howard, supra note 8, at 653-54 (explaining how the ACPA is applied and the necessary elements that must be established by a plaintiff bringing a claim).
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 See Vuong, supra note 18, at C1 (reporting on the rush to register domain names and the costs businesses are willing to pay to acquire these domain names).
35 Id. (reporting on the selling of business.com for $ 7.5 million in 1999); See also Lee Hawkins, Jr. Simple Capitalism or Cyberextortion?, MILWAUKEE J. SENTINEL, Mar. 21, 1999, at 1 (reporting on the selling of altavista.com for $ 3.3 million); Katharine Biele, What's in a Web name? Maybe as much as $1 million, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct. 7, 1999, at 2 (reporting on the selling of a domain name bingo.com and wallstreet.com for $1 million or more).
36 See Raysman & Brown, supra note 16, at 3.
37 See Nigel Cope, A Hit for Jethro Toll in Domain Name Dispute, THE INDEPENDENT, July 31, 2001, at 15 (reporting the high profile companies that have successfully brought claims before ICANN's UDRP).
38 See Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Statistical Summary of Proceedgins, (visited Oct. 16, 2001) at < http://www.icann.org/udrp/proceedings-stat.htm>.
39 See also Suber & Cukor, supra note 12, at 18 (citing recent statistics of domain name disputes resolved under the ICANN's UDRP).
40 See Steven H. Pollak, www.thisismyname.com; Staking your claim in the domain game, FULTON COUTY DAILY REPORT, Oct. 6, 2000, at 1.
41 See Howard, supra note 8, at 650-52 (discussing the jurisdictional issues that arise in typical litigation involving domain name disputes).
42 See Matt Railo, Trademark owners weigh court vs. UDRP, NAT'L J. July 24, 2000, at C1 (discussing the reasons why a company would seek relief under the ACPA instead of the UDRP).
43 See Vuong, supra note 18, at C1 (citing the number of domain names that have remained inactive for over a year).
2
 

1