<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Every time I write about URS, I'm stopped that it's still not time to talk about it...</div><div><br></div><div>I agree with Doug that an important factor when considering to choose between URS and UDRP is the low administrative fees.</div><div><br></div><div>The other one is that it is fast and the brand owners' first intention could be to obtain cessation of the infringement immediately.</div><div><br></div><div>It is less used that it could be, also because there is a lack of information amongst the brand owners' when it applies (many requests of information if it can be use for .com domains) and which is the outcome/what happens when suspension period expires.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that the statistics, over 680 URS cases filed at the 3 URS Dispute Resolution Providers, shows that it is used and useful (over 95% of the disputed domain names suspended). When we will arrive at that point I am sure that ICANN staff, Forum and ADNDRC will provide statistics how many successful URS cases turned into UDRP.</div><div><br></div><div>Happy New Year to everyone!</div><div><br><div><div apple-content-edited="true"><div style="line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;">Ivett Paulovics</div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;">URS Domain Dispute Case Manager</div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;">---</div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">MFSD Srl | IP Dispute Resolution Center </span></div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Viale Beatrice d'Este, 20 | 20122 Milano (Italy)</span></div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">T <a dir="ltr" href="tel:+39%2002%2045506624" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="2">+39 02 45506624</a> | F <a dir="ltr" href="tel:+39%2002%2091471087" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="3/0">+39 02 91471087</a></span></div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="mailto:responsabile@mfsd.it">urs@mfsd.it</a> | <a href="http://ww.mfsd.it/">www.mfsd.it</a> </span></font></div></div><div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Skype mfsd</span></div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">P. Iva <a dir="ltr" href="tel:04810100968" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="3/3">04810100968</a> (Italian VAT)</span></div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">-------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">URS Domain Dispute Resolution Service Provider approved by ICANN</span></div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">.it Domain Dispute Resolution Center accredited by Registry .it</span></div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">IP Mediation Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n. 903)</span></div></div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">IP Mediation Training Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n. 392)</span></div></div><div style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div></div></div><p class="AppleTemporaryEdgeToEdgeParagraphElement" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; height: 38px; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1px;"><img src="cid:1ECE0438-9D98-41F7-AAD9-10EE7CE22471" alt="1ECE0438-9D98-41F7-AAD9-10EE7CE22471" style="font-size: 13pt; width: 320px; left: 0px; right: 0px; position: absolute;"></p></div></div><div><br>Il giorno 03 gen 2017, alle ore 20:41, Doug Isenberg <<a href="mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com">disenberg@gigalawfirm.com</a>> ha scritto:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>I have no insights as to why this trademark owner chose the URS instead of</span><br><span>the UDRP, but certainly the filing fee for this URS case (as I noted in my</span><br><span>blog post) was much less than a UDRP complaint would have cost. At the</span><br><span>Forum (where this URS complaint was filed -- and where the same trademark</span><br><span>owner has filed previous UDRP cases), the filing fee for a URS case with</span><br><span>more than 50 domain names is only $500; by comparison, the Forum doesn't</span><br><span>even publish a fee schedule for UDRP cases with more than 16 domain names</span><br><span>(and the UDRP filing fee for a complaint with 15 domain names is $2,250).</span><br><span>Clearly, the UDRP filing fee would have been many times more expensive than</span><br><span>for the URS case. Since trademark owners often consider costs when</span><br><span>evaluating enforcement options, I suspect this may have been a factor.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Doug</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>-----Original Message-----</span><br><span>From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]</span><br><span>On Behalf Of Jon Nevett</span><br><span>Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:31 PM</span><br><span>To: Marc Trachtenberg <<a href="mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com">trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com</a>></span><br><span>Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>></span><br><span>Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History</span><br><span></span><br><span>Thanks for sharing Phil and Doug.</span><br><span></span><br><span>This case is an interesting data point of a brand holder deciding to use the</span><br><span>URS over the UDRP. We developed the RPMs with the hope that brand holders</span><br><span>would utilize the RPMs that made the most sense to them to protect their</span><br><span>brands. The URS was developed for slam-dunk cases of infringement. We</span><br><span>wanted to create a quicker and less costly way to take down infringing</span><br><span>domain names. There was a deliberate distinction between the standard of</span><br><span>proof and remedies with the URS and the UDRP. If these distinctions didn't</span><br><span>exist, there would not have been a purpose for the URS. It would be</span><br><span>interesting to understand why a brand holder like this one selected to use</span><br><span>the URS over the UDRP -- and especially whether they understood the risk</span><br><span>that Kiran mentioned.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Look forward to the discussion at the appropriate time.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Best,</span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>