Abstract:

The UDRP Procedure Had Made It Possible, According To Clear Statistical Data Derived From Several Studies Carried Out By Renowned Professors, To Favour The Applicants.[1] Don't Such Conclusions Call For Further Analysis And Even Proof? Do Such Results Not Imply That There Is A Clear Path For Those Who Want To Use The Procedure In The Opposite Direction, To Hijack It For Their Own Benefit?[2] 

However, The Starting Point Of This Procedure Was The Identification And Effective Sanction Of The Abusive Use Of Domain Names On The Internet. In Particular, The Phenomenon Of Cybersquatting, And Therefore The Use Of An Internet Domain In Bad Faith, Presented Real Dangers For Trademark Holders. The UDRP Procedure Has Never Provided Any Real Criteria For Assessing Whether Users Are Acting In Bad Faith.

That Is Why This Research Analysed And Described The Way In Which Bad Faith Could Be Deduced From Certain Criteria, To Finally Present A Model Established At The Beginning Of The Implementation Of The UDRP Arbitration Procedure. This Perspective Determined The Need To Take Into Account A Limited But Sufficient Number Of Arbitration Decisions, In The Early Days Of The Procedure, In Order To Discover The Ins And Outs Of This Model, Which Was Subsequently Used In Subsequent Disputes.