The URS only provides for a proportionally appropriate remedy, namely the temporary domain name suspension . Importantly, URS determinations rarely provide insight into the particular legal reasoning applied. Thus, while a UDRP panel should be made aware of a URS determination, it is not bound by that determination. Under the relevant ICANN provisions, a URS complaint may not be filed if there is a pending URS or UDRP proceeding involving the same domain name. There is no explicit prohibition however, against the filing of a UDRP proceeding during a URS case.

On December 20, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. That by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. Prior to the notice of the dispute, Respondent did not demonstrate any use of the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant lost control of the Domain Name via a fraudulent unauthorized transfer in 2020. In the context of Complainant’s investigation, Complainant contacted the registrar where the Domain Name had been registered, Network Solutions and the Registrar, where the account had been transferred.

Paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules similarly vests the panel with the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition. As noted above in respect of supplemental filings, paragraph 12 of the UDRP Rules makes clear that it is for the panel to request, in its sole discretion, any further statements or documents from the parties that it deems necessary. On receipt of a request to submit an unsolicited supplemental filing or the actual receipt of such filing, the WIPO Center will confirm receipt of the request or filing to the parties, and forward such request or filing to the panel for its consideration as to admissibility. Paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests the panel with the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition. Panels have typically treated a respondent’s submission of a so-called “informal response” (merely making unsupported conclusory statements and/or failing to specifically address the case merits as they relate to the three UDRP elements, e.g., simply asserting that the case “has no merit” and demanding that it be dismissed) in a similar manner as a respondent default. Noting the burden of proof on the complainant, a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a formal response) would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true.

Under this standard, a party should demonstrate to a panel’s satisfaction that it is more likely than not that a claimed fact is true. In addition to the above-described application of the specific Policy criteria, rectangle c2c panels have applied a range of considerations in assessing bad faith. Panels have been prepared in appropriate cases to draw inferences concerning a respondent’s intent from the relevant facts and circumstances.

[18.] A copy of this Complaint, [has/has not] been sent or transmitted to the concerned registrar on in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Supplemental Rules. A copy of this Complaint has also been sent to the Registrar with which the domain name that is/are the subject of the Complaint is/are registered. After submitting this form, you will receive a confirmation message both on-screen and by email to the address you provide in the form. This confirmation message will include the full text of the Complaint as received by the Center.

The Panel used its limited powers under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules and rightly so, undertook factual research at This was done to check how a disputed domain name may have been used in a relevant past. The Panel found, pursuant to this search, found out that at least on March 5, 2021, the Respondent had a functional website on the disputed domain name for maritime and shipping job vacancies. The Panel then went ahead to conclude that such use predates the filing of the instant proceeding and hence doesn’t meet the criteria under paragraph 4 of the policy. Respondent very strongly reverted by stating that “seajob” is a descriptive mark that can be rightfully used by third parties and so can they when in connection with jobs and job offerings in the marine industry.