Abstract:

This study examines the interpretation and application of "bad faith" under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, particularly in the context of cybersquatting and domain name disputes. While the procedure aims to deter the abusive registration of domain names, it provides limited guidance on assessing "bad faith," a crucial criterion in arbitration decisions. This gap in the texts was the start of the research, and the main focus of the interest. Through qualitative analysis, this research explores how arbitrators infer bad faith, utilizing a sample of arbitration decisions issued by the World Intellectual Property Organization. Drawing on theories of interpretive philosophy, the study investigates whether consistent, unwritten criteria emerged alongside the formal dispute resolution standards, thus offering insights into an evolving model for domain names dispute resolution interpretation. Findings suggest that early decisions contributed to shaping interpretive patterns, potentially establishing a precedent for handling ambiguous cases of cybersquatting. This research provides a framework to assess whether a unified model for evaluating bad faith can enhance fairness and predictability in domain name dispute resolutions.