[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Data on Dispute Rates (UDRP/URS) in the Analysis Group Revised Report

[Dorrain, Kristine]

Thanks Amr,

To be clear, the National Arbitration Forum changed its name to Forum in that time frame (its domain is adrforum.com) so bullets 2 and 3 are the same provider.

Best,

Kristine

From: gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 6:26 AM
To: gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Data on Dispute Rates (UDRP/URS) in the Analysis Group Revised Report

Dear Sub Team Members,

During the last Trademark Claims Sub Team call on Friday, 26 May, there was a question on how Domain Dispute Records were used in the analysis conducted by the Analysis Group (AG) in their revised report. Specifically, the question was whether the dispute rate (the number of new gTLD domain name registrations that triggered a Claims notice resulting in a dispute being filed) between January 2014 and December 2015 included both UDRP and URS cases, only UDRP cases or only URS cases.

The Analysis Group collected dispute data from cases filed between January 2014 and December 2015 from 5 providers:


·         Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (UDRP and URS provider)

·         National Arbitration Forum (UDRP and URS provider)

·         Alternative Dispute Resolution Forum (UDRP and URS provider)

·         Czech Arbitration Court Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes (UDRP provider only)

·         Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution providers (UDRP provider only)

The total number of disputes filed during this period were roughly 17,500 cases broken down into 8,751 UDRP cases in 2014 and 8,182 cases in 2015, as well as 281 URS cases in 2014 and 287 in 2015 (See Table 2 on page 11 of the Analysis Group Revised Report<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/tmch/revised-services-review-22feb17-en.pdf>).

In its analysis of the data, the AG identified the dispute rate of domains that trigger Claims Service notifications, by matching the Claims Service notifications data to the dispute data. They were able to identify 12.9% of the dispute data as registrations made in the Claims Service notifications data (12.9% of the 17,500 disputes filed). Additionally, the AG identified 346 out of 113,684 (0.3%) of completed registrations between October 2013 and February 2016 (not abandoned) as registrations that triggered a Claims Notice as a result of an exact match to trademark records in the TMCH resulting in a dispute.

The analysis, however, did not specify how many of the disputes in either of these two figures were UDRP or URS cases.

I hope this is helpful.

Thanks.

Amr


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20170530/56639b8a/attachment-0001.html>