DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – January 29, 2005

Read this on Canoe

The introduction of the Internet into the everyday lifestyles of consumers has fundamentally changed the way we do business.

A domain name is an important part of a businesses identity. Reaching customers by a website can be crucial to a company’s ability to compete in the marketplace. Cybersquatters can interfere with this ability — but fortunately there is recourse.

Registry systems for most domains (such as .com, .net, .org and .ca) are based on a first-come, first-served policy. Applicants don’t have to show rights in the domain name before they register.

This has made it easy for cybersquatters to obtain valuable domain names, such as cocacola.ca, thus causing problems for firms that actually have rights in the marks used as domain names.

Cybersquatters may register domain names such as well-known company names or trademarks with the hope of selling it for profit. Competitors might register them to confuse and divert potential customers of a competing business.

Court battles for an injunction to stop this could take years. But dispute resolution mechanisms are in place to resolve ownership of a domain name while avoiding costly and lengthy court battles.

There are two dispute resolution polices relevant to most Canadian businesses. For disputes involving .ca domain names, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority provides the CIRA dispute resolution policy (CDRP). This gives firms with rights in trademarks or trade names a quick, inexpensive forum to deal with a bad-faith registration of their marks as a domain name.

The CDRP requires the complainant to prove it meets the Canadian presence requirement, the disputed domain name is “confusingly similar” to a mark in which the complainant has rights, the domain name was registered in “bad faith,” and the registrant has no “legitimate interest” in the domain name.

For disputes involving .com, .net and .org domain names, the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers provides the uniform domain name dispute resolution policy (UDRP). The CDRP was based on the UDRP, thus the two are similar.

Both policies require a written complaint, usually including any evidence upon which the complainant relies. Preparation of this complaint and evidence is crucial as there are no oral hearings.

Both policies also give the arbitrators the authority to uphold the registration, cancel the registration or transfer the disputed domain name to the complainant. Although they’re similar, they aren’t identical. For example, under the CDRP the complainant must meet the Canadian-presence requirement and prove it actually used its trademark or trade name in Canada.

The CDRP defines “bad faith” more narrowly than the UDRP. It requires a three-member panel by default and only allows the complainant to opt for a one-person panel if the registrant doesn’t respond.

The CDRP also has a cost sanction where the complainant can be forced to pay as much as $5,000 if it files the complaint in bad faith.

Regardless of the difference in the two procedures, both are effective methods of getting rid of cybersquatters that might affect your business