Facebook Domain Name Dispute: Registrant Asks ICANN to Overturn UDRP Ruling

Recently, a controversy surrounding the domain name meta-platforms-inc.com has once again attracted attention. After losing a UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) decision, the registrant in this dispute asked ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to overturn the decision, accusing WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) of “fraudulent conduct” for failing to publish the decision in a timely manner as required.

Background: Motivation and Controversy in Domain Name Registration

The registrant registered the domain name meta-platforms-inc, which is highly similar to the Meta name, out of “frustration” and “distress” after Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook's parent company) shut down its social media accounts. Upon discovering this behavior, Meta filed a complaint through WIPO seeking a determination that the domain name belonged to Meta under the UDRP rules.

According to WIPO's investigation, the registrant, after being contacted by Meta's lawyers, demanded financial compensation in exchange for the domain name. This behavior was consistent with the typical characteristics of domain name squatting, and Meta eventually won the case and the domain name was transferred to Meta.

Complaint and Grounds Raised by the Registrant

After losing the case, the registrant filed a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) with ICANN in an attempt to overturn WIPO's decision. The registrant claimed that WIPO had failed to comply with the deadlines set out in the UDRP rules and had engaged in “fraudulent conduct”.

Specifically, the Registrant bases its complaint on the following grounds:

1. Misunderstanding of the UDRP Rules:

The Registrant believed that the WIPO Panel should have published its decision online within 14 days of the filing of the complaint. However, the actual requirement of the UDRP is that the Panel is required to submit its decision to WIPO within 14 days and not to publish it publicly immediately.

2. Challenge of procedural justice:

The Registrant seeks to challenge the legality of the ruling and request ICANN to intervene on the basis that WIPO has not acted in accordance with the rules as it understands them.

3. Analysis of the Likelihood of ICANN Intervention

Despite the registrant's complaint, its chances of success are close to zero. Based on past cases, ICANN does not directly intervene in UDRP adjudications.

-2022, Zydus Lifesciences, an Indian vaccine manufacturer, had filed two unsuccessful RfRs against its reverse domain name hijacking ruling.

The first time, ICANN made it clear that the RfR only applied to challenges to ICANN's own decisions and that WIPO was not part of ICANN.

The second time, the ICANN Ombudsman reiterated that ICANN was not responsible for the outcome of the UDRP's independent decision.

These cases show that even if a registrant is dissatisfied with a ruling, RfR is not an effective way to overturn the decision.