Same Complainant, Different Decisions: SullCrom’s UDRP Dispute

Recently, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (SullCrom) filed UDRP complaints against two domain names associated with its brand, sullcrom-uk.com and sullcrom-ny.com, but the cases had very different outcomes. This phenomenon has once again triggered a discussion on the consistency of UDRP dispute resolution.

In the sullcrom-uk.com case, arbitrator Charles A. Kuechenmeister held that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent lacked a legitimate interest in the domain name. Because the respondent did not clearly use the domain name in bad faith, the arbitrator ultimately dismissed the complaint and allowed the respondent to continue to hold the domain name.

In the sullcrom-ny.com case, arbitrator Dawn Osborne applied a different standard. She noted that the domain name was not used for an active website and determined that "passively holding" a domain name may itself constitute a bad faith registration. Because the respondent did not respond to the complaint, the arbitrator ultimately ruled that the domain name should be transferred to the complainant.

The different rulings of these two cases show that even in the face of similar facts, UDRP arbitration may still produce different results due to different panel members. This not only puts higher evidence requirements on brand protection parties, but also reminds domain name holders to fully prepare defense materials in UDRP disputes.

The results of these two cases also provide domain name holders and brand owners with some noteworthy experiences and lessons:

1. Evidence is crucial: the complainant needs to provide conclusive evidence to prove that the respondent maliciously registered and used the domain name, and the respondent should also prepare sufficient materials to prove its legitimate use of the domain name.

2. "Passive holding" has risks: if a domain name has not been used for a long time, it may be identified as a malicious registration by some arbitrators, so the holder should try to keep a certain record of use.

3. The arbitrator's case style affects the results: different arbitrators may have different rulings on UDRP cases, so both the complainant and the respondent need to understand the past cases of the relevant arbitrators to better formulate strategies.