regulation of internet commerce
class four - january 10, 2008
professor michael geist
university of ottawa, faculty of law
special guest appearance by:
jacob glick
canada policy counsel, Google

domain name system
• Numbers - IP addresses - 87.123.345.76
• Names - Domain names - news.google.com, uottawa.ca
• Hierarchies within domains
• Top level - domain extension (.com)
• Second level - name (google)
• Third level - sub-name (news)
• Each name matches to a number
Key issues
• Who gets to allocate?
• Who gets them? Under what conditions? How are disputes resolved?

domain name system - numbers
• Blocks of IP addresses - allocated to corporations,
ISPs, academic institutions, etc.
• Concern about running out of numbers - IPv4 vs.
IPv6

domain name system - numbers
• Who allocates - IANA - Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority
• Delegate specific allocations to Regional Internet
Registries (RIRs)
• ARIN
• RIPENCC
• AFRINIC
• APNIC
• LACNIC

domain name system - names
• Today over 100 million domain names
• Each unique string - matches to an IP address
• Several types of domains
• Generic TLDs - .com, .net, .org, .edu., .int., .mil, .gov
• ccTLDs - .ca, .il, .uk, .fr
• New unsponsored gTLDs - .biz, .info, .name
• New sponsored gTLDs - .travel, .coop, .pro, .aero, .museum
• Who gets to allocate? What rules for registration?

How does it work?
1. User seeks to send email/visit to
uottawa.ca
2. Browser/ISP “looks up” the IP address
for the uottawa.ca domain
3. The look-up may go no further than
the ISP or may escalate to the DNS
server
4. Once IP address is identified, email is
sent or browser resolves the query

domain name system - names
Root server (mirrored, TLD info, ICANN control, USG)
Registries (gTLDs, ccTLDs)
Registrars (single, competitive)
Registrants (domain name holders)
• Hierarchical
• Authoritative

domain name system - root server
Root server (mirrored, TLD info, ICANN control)
Registries (gTLDs, ccTLDs)
Registrars (single, competitive)
Registrants (domain name holders)

domain name system - root server
• “ruling the root” - root server is the single point of information
• Server located in Virginia, USA
• Server is mirrored by many other servers worldwide
• Very small database - list of recognized domains (gTLDs, ccTLDs)
and their registries (admin contacts)
• Doesn’t point to individual domain name registrations
• Key issues:
• How do you get in the database?
• How do get taken out of the database?
• How do you change the contents of the database?
• What happens if more than one root?

domain name system - registries
Root server (mirrored, TLD info, ICANN control)
Registries (gTLDs, ccTLDs)
Registrars (single, competitive)
Registrants (domain name holders)

domain name system - registries
• Several responsibilities:
• Technical
• Registration
• Resolution
• Policy
• How can you get a domain?
• What can you do with a domain?
• How do you lose a domain?
• Many different models - for profit, non-profit, gov’t run, academic-run,
etc.
• Key issues:
• How do you get to be a registry?
• What gives registries the right to operate and set policy?
• ICANN, government relationships

domain name system - registrars
Root server (mirrored, TLD info, ICANN control)
Registries (gTLDs, ccTLDs)
Registrars (single, competitive)
Registrants (domain name holders)

domain name system - registrars
• Many TLDs employ competitive registrar system
• Company that registers domain names
• Typically contractually “regulated” by registry
• “Purchases” domain at wholesale price from registry; free to resell to the
public at any price
• Maintains direct relationship with registrant
• Subjects registrant to domain name policies via contract
• Hundreds of domain name registrars for gTLDs
• ccTLDs employ various models (.ca - competitive model; .il - single
registrar/registry)
• Registrars employ different biz models - direct sale, resellers
• Many of the innovative business practices in the industry are driven by
RARs

domain name system - registrants
Root server (mirrored, TLD info, ICANN control)
Registries (gTLDs, ccTLDs)
Registrars (single, competitive)
Registrants (domain name holders)

domain name system - registrants
• Individuals, companies, etc. who hold rights to domain name
• RANTs determine what IP address resolves to that domain and
therefore the content associated with the domain
• Contractual rights, rarely treated as a property right
• Renewable contract
• Primary Market
– First come, first serve
• Secondary Market
– Auction
• May be subject to registration restrictions - i.e.. presence requirements,
limit on number of domains, restricted names

big business
• The business..
• Primary Market
• Registry - $7/domain wholesale/year
• Registrar - $20/domain retail/year
• Secondary Market
• Single domain - potentially worth millions (vodka.com - $3m)
• Lapsed domains - thousands per domain
• Value of is asset based on traffic/ad revenue/perceived value

the issues
• ICANN oversight/USG Involvement
• WHOIS information - what is displayed
• Internationalized domains
• Domain name dispute resolution
• Creation of new TLDs
• Relationship between ICANN and various interests (registrants,
registrars, TLDs, RIRs)

What’s in a Name?
• Tracing Domain Name Dispute Resolution
• Dot-com -- NSI, ICANN UDRP, the Courts
• Dot-ca -- the Courts, CDRP Development

What’s in a Name?
• Who owns a dot-ca or a dot-com?
• First come, first served
• Issue - only one domain per name & limited
restrictions on registration (CPR in Canada;
none for dot-coms)
• United Airlines, United Van Lines, United
Telephone, United Bank

Challenging Dot-coms
• Early days -- NSI dispute policies
• Freezing domains
• Competing global trademarks
• Transfer from NSI to ICANN
• ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Process
(UDRP) follows WIPO-led process
• The Courts/Anticybersquatting Act (U.S.)

Challenging Dot-coms
• Numerous actions in Canada and the U.S. - courts deal largely via
trademark law, trademark dilution, and unfair competition statutes
• Anticybersquatting act powerful new tool
• In Rem jurisdiction may be of Canadian concern (Technodome case)

ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy (UDRP)
• June 1998 - White Paper calls for private sector body and
asks WIPO to lead on IP issue
• April 1999 - WIPO delivers model DRP
• October 1999 - ICANN approves UDRP
• November 1999 - WIPO approved as first provider
• January 2000 - first case

ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy (UDRP)
• Domain name disputes are frequently cross-border
• Need for speed, accessibility, global scope
• ICANN UDRP
– 3 providers - WIPO, NAF, ADNDRC (eRes folds)
– Bad Faith Domain Name Registrations
– 3 Months and $1 - 3,000
• Over 18,000 proceedings

ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy (UDRP)
Complainant must prove…
• domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the complainant has
rights
• no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain
name
• domain name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith

ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy (UDRP)
Bad Faith includes…
• Attempt to sell, lease, etc. the domain
• Prevent registration if there is a pattern of such
behaviour
• Disrupt competitor’s business
• Attract, for commercial gain, visitors to your site
via confusion

ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy (UDRP)
Legitimate interest includes…
• Bona fide offering of goods or services
• Commonly known as domain
• Legitimate non-commercial use provided no
attempt to obtain commercial gain via confusion

ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy (UDRP)
• Step-by-step process
• Complainant launches claim with arb. provider
• Registrant opportunity to respond and decide whether one
or three member panel
• Arbitration provider assigns panelist(s)
• Panelist(s) render decision based on evidence submitted

Bodacious-Tatas.com
• Complainant - Tata & Sons (India)
• Respondent - D &V Enterprises (USA)
• ADR Provider - WIPO (Switzerland)
• Arbitrator - Michael Ophir (Israel)
• Precedent - Nokiagirls.com case (Japan
with a Belgian arbitrator)

The Good
• Fast - Complaint launched May 23, 2000; decision
August 18, 2000
• Inexpensive - one panelist
• Co-exists with local legal systems -
injunction obtained in India but tough to enforce
• Global - international composition of the case
• Law Accessible - decision freely available; relies on
precedent

The Bad
• Substantive Questions -- Are we getting “good”
decisions?
• Inconsistent Decisions
– Geographic Names (Barcelona.com vs. StMoritz.com)
– Generic Names (Crew.com vs. Jobpostings.com)
– Definition of Bad Faith Use (buyguerlain.com vs.
buyvuarnetsunglasses.com)

The Ugly
Forum Shopping
• Complainant win percentages:
• WIPO - 82%
• NAF - 83%
• eResolution - 63%
• 93% of the cases to the two complainant-friendly providers
(WIPO & NAF)
• eResolution -- 3 cases in February 2001 (183 WIPO, 96
NAF); Folds December 2001

The Ugly
• Case Allocation Bias
• One Panelist (83%) vs. Three-Member Panels (60%)
• Case Allocation --
• NAF -- 53% of cases to six panelists (complainant win percentage
in those cases -- 94%)
• WIPO - 104 of 105 panelists (with five or more cases) rule in
favour of complaints over 50% of the time

Noteworthy Cases
• Telstra - no use can constitute bad faith
• WalmartCanadasucks.com - no transfer of sucks
site
• Annemclennan.com - trademark rights in personal
name?
• Newzealand.com - no rights in country name

The Development of the CDRP
Influences
• ICANN UDRP
• Canadian court experience
• Desire for a Canadian-specific approach
(language, CPR)
• ccTLD considerations

The Development of the CDRP
Timeline
• April 2000 - first public comment document released
• August 2000 - first report released
• September 2000 - first draft rules released for comment
• November 2000 - CIRA changeover
• January 2001 - report on draft rules consultation
• June 2001 - CIRA elections
• September 2001 - new CDRP released for comment
• October 2001 - board approves CDRP

Key CDRP Provisions
Launching a Claim
• Complainant (who meets CIRA Canadian
Presence Requirements) required to prove:
– Registrant’s .ca domain name is Confusingly Similar to
a Mark in which the Complainant has Rights
– Registrant has no legitimate interest in the domain
– Registrant has registered the domain name in bad faith

Key CDRP Provisions
Confusing Similarity Prong
• Confusingly similar if resembles mark in appearance,
sound, or ideas such that likely to be mistaken for mark
• Mark based largely on Trademark Act definition
– Can be registered or unregistered
• Rights requires use in Canada
• Problem: Highly legalistic

Key CDRP Provisions
Bad Faith Prong
• Exhaustive list of bad faith indicia:
– Registered or acquired domain primarily for purpose of resale,
lease, etc. to Complainant or Complainant’s competitor
– Registered or acquired domain primarily to prevent Complainant
from registering and engaged in pattern of such activity
– Registered or acquired domain primarily to disrupt Complainant’s
business and Registrant & Complainant are competitors
• Problem: Doesn’t account for new business models, leads
to some odd reasons

Key CDRP Provisions
Legitimate Interest Prong
Complainant must also affirmatively show that the registrant
has no legitimate interest
Problem: Asks them to prove a negative

Key CDRP Provisions
Legitimate Interest Prong
If Confusion, Bad Faith and No Legitimate Interest are proven, onus falls
to Registrant to prove legitimate interest :
• Registrant has rights in the Mark
• Good faith commercial use - domain descriptive or generic
• Good faith non-commercial use including news reporting and criticism
• Legal name of registrant
• Geographical location of Registrant’s non-commercial activity or place
of business

Key CDRP Provisions
Canadian Issues
• CDRP only open to those who meet Canadian
Presence Requirements
• Canadian law governs all disputes
• Actions brought in either English or French

Key CDRP Provisions
Of Note…
• Reverse Hijacking clause -- up to $5000 in damages
– Never applied
• Domains can be transferred or cancelled
– Typically transferred, rarely cancelled
• 60 days to implement
• Three member panels for all contested cases
• Two dispute resolution providers - BCIAC and Resolution Canada

CDRP Revisions?
• Standing
– Non-trade words
– Personal names
• Procedural Changes
– Default Judgment
– Appeals
– Mediation
• Simplified test
• Rights, Fairness
• Improved quality