Why Aren’t Domain Industry Lawyers UDRP Panelists?
One thing I noticed is that it seems there are UDRP panelists who either represent clients in UDRP proceedings or work at law firms that represent clients in UDRP proceedings. Based on my own recollection, I don’t believe there are any domain name lawyers (who are also experienced in intellectual property law) who serve as a UDRP panelist.
When a domain owner has a domain name that is the subject of a UDRP proceeding, one would expect the UDRP panelist(s) to be experienced intellectual property attorneys. Understanding and having IP experience is necessary when considering cases involving IP-related issues.
That being said, I think every domain name investment industry lawyer has a background in intellectual property and trademark law. There are quite a few exceptional attorneys who regularly represent domain investor clients, and I don’t understand why none of them seem to serve as panelists for WIPO or NAF UDRP cases.
UDRP panelists need to be neutral when serving, and I would imagine domain investment industry attorneys can be as neutral as their counterparties who represent trademark owners. I can’t imagine this would be the issue.
In my opinion, the vast majority of UDRP proceedings are pretty clear cut. On cases that involve valuable generic domain names, I don’t see why a domain owner shouldn’t be able to choose a panelist that represents domain investor interests for the panel when a UDRP complainant can choose a panelist who represents trademark interests.
I am curious why there aren’t any domain name lawyers serving as UDRP panelists. Could it be that none of these attorneys is interested in serving on UDRP panels? Shouldn’t domain industry attorneys be panelists in the same way lawyers who represent trademark interests are panelists? Of course, I may have missed something important, and if that is the case, I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what I missed.
Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | Google + | Facebook | Email