Domain Name Transfers: Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP)

Internet Lawyer

When a domain name needs to be transferred from one registrar to another, problems can arise between registrars. ICANN, the global organization that “governs” internet identifier naming systems, has a policy for resolving domain transfer disputes between registrars. The procedures apply only after the registrars have made a good faith attempt to solve the problem on their own.

A registrar seeking to file a claim has two options. They can either file a direct claim with the Registry Operator[1] (the top-level domain provider as named by ICANN), or they can file a claim with a Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which would issue a binding decision, appealable only in a court with proper jurisdiction. Any claim must be brought within 6 months of the alleged violation of transfer policy.

Option 1: Filing with the Registry Operator

Under this scenario, a claim must be submitted electronically to both the Registry and the opposing registrar and must include all relevant information as set out by ICANN. This includes, for example, details of the transfer agreement, contact information for the parties, the grounds for the complaint and the remedy sought, and evidence of the transfer agreement. The responding registrar then has 7 days to respond to each claim and must do so specifically. The Registry Operator then has 14 days to make a decision. Only the losing registrar will be charged a fee, and either registrar can move the proceedings to a court with proper jurisdiction at any time.

Option 2: Dispute Resolution Panel

Under this scenario, the same documentation is required of the registrars under the same timeline. The difference is, the dispute will be judged and decided upon by a DRP—appointed by a Dispute Resolution Provider—within 30 days of receiving the filings. The DRP can either grant or deny the transfer.[2] An appeal can be filed by the losing registrar with a Dispute Resolution Provider within 14 days of the DRP’s decision. The appeal must follow the same conditions as the original claim (electronic form, contact info, etc.). Filing fees are to be determined by the Dispute Resolution Provider, must be paid by the filing registrar, and are reimbursable if they prevail on their claim. Either party may move the proceedings to a court with proper jurisdiction at any time.

This is just a cursory overview of ICANN’s Dispute Resolution Policy. The policy can be found here, but registrars or domain name owners seeking to file a claim should seek the advice of an attorney to help navigate through the ICANN procedures and effectively advocate on their behalf.

[1] A registrar could also file a claim with a Dispute Resolution Provider, however doing so eliminates the chance to appeal a decision from the Provider.

[2] If the transfer has already occurred, but should not have, the DRP can force the return of the domain name back to the original registrar.

Extra, Extra!
Recent Posts

2025 Changes to Trademark Fees

2025 Changes to Trademark Fees

Trademark

There are some significant changes coming to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that will affect trademark filings beginning January 18, 2025. These changes include the introduction of the Trademark Center, new fees, and revised application requirements. Here is an overview of the key changes: The USPTO will retire the TEAS system, which […]

Read more about 2025 Changes to Trademark Fees

Automated Decision-Making Technology: California Releases Proposed Regulations

Automated Decision-Making Technology: California Releases Proposed Regulations

Internet Law

In today’s competitive e-commerce landscape, automated decision-making technology is becoming more and more important. From personalized product recommendations to targeted advertising and streamlined logistics, these systems help ecommerce businesses adapt and grow. But new regulations are on the horizon, and these changes could reshape the way e-commerce businesses use automation. The California Privacy Protection Agency […]

Read more about Automated Decision-Making Technology: California Releases Proposed Regulations

FTC Adopts Final “Click to Cancel Rule”

FTC Adopts Final “Click to Cancel Rule”

Internet Law

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued final amendments to its trade regulation rule concerning negative option plans, also known as the “click to cancel rule.” This rule aims to address widespread deceptive practices that prohibit customers from cancelling services in the same manner in which they signed up. Here’s a detailed summary of the […]

Read more about FTC Adopts Final “Click to Cancel Rule”

Put Revision Legal on your side