My SUGGESTION would be: you can DELETE the DOMAIN from your registrar. Once you delete, and once it's gone from your account then you're not associated with it anymore.
What's great about the internet is there is never a shortage of people offering advice who don't know what they are talking about.
A UDRP proceeding starts by filing a complaint with a UDRP provider. It used to be required to notify the registrant upon filing. However, cybersquatters did the obvious things and either deleted or transferred the domain name. So, the procedure was updated several years ago to remove the requirement for the complainant to notify the registrant.
Instead, what happens is that upon receiving the complaint, the UDRP provider (WIPO, ADRForum, etc.) notifies the registrar and requests the registrant data. The registrar LOCKS the domain name, so that the domain name cannot be deleted or transferred, and the registrar sends the underlying registrant contact data to the complainant. The UDRP provider then invites the complainant to update the complaint with the received registrant data.
The UDRP rules aren't some sort of hidden secret on this point:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en
(b) Within two (2) business days of receiving the Provider's verification request, the Registrar shall provide the information requested in the verification request and confirm that a Lock of the domain name has been applied. The Registrar shall not notify the Respondent of the proceeding until the Lock status has been applied. The Lock shall remain in place through the remaining Pendency of the UDRP proceeding. Any updates to the Respondent's data, such as through the result of a request by a privacy or proxy provider to reveal the underlying customer data, must be made before the two (2) business day period concludes or before the Registrar verifies the information requested and confirms the Lock to the UDRP Provider, whichever occurs first. Any modification(s) of the Respondent's data following the two (2) business day period may be addressed by the Panel in its decision.
So, no, you can't delete the name.
Because the respondent may not have known about the trademark, or may have picked up the name in a bulk purchase, a lot of parties to a UDRP simply prefer to get the name transferred. So, if the parties agree, there is a procedure (Rule 17) under which:
(1) The parties notify WIPO they would like to transfer the name.
(2) WIPO informs the registrar to transfer the name to the complainant.
(3) the parties confirm the transfer.
(4) the proceeding is terminated.
(5) At WIPO, but not at ADRForum, the complainant receives a $1000 refund.
When WIPO commences a proceeding, they send a form for that purpose.
Sometimes, the complainant will not agree to a transfer. There are a couple of reasons for this:
1. The Complainant doesn't know that it is a safe procedure that is done between the registrar and the UDRP provider, and they don't trust the registrant, so they say no.
2. The Complainant (or the attorney) doesn't know they get a $1000 refund.
3. The Respondent had previously acted like a jackass toward the Complainant's attorney, so they don't feel like doing it.
4. The Complainant has a weak trademark and wants to make a point.
5. The Complainant has paid for enough legal time and it is simpler just to let it go, if they don't want the name right away.
There are a lot of UDRP decisions on the subject of whether the panel should go through the whole UDRP analysis and just order the name transferred by consent. It is handy to have citations to those decisions, if the reason is number 4 or 5, since agreeing to the transfer simply moves the proceeding to the point where the registrar is required to transfer the name, but without waiting a month.
But reasons 1 and 2 are based on the fact that the attorney on the other side, or the pro se complainant, may simply not be aware of the procedure. That is why instead of saying "I want to transfer the name" you should help them to understand WHY they should agree with you. Domainers typically don't do that, because, as this thread demonstrates, they don't know the rules in the first place. That's why before "doing stuff" that won't help and could make things worse, it is sometimes helpful to contact any of the several attorneys in this field who are happy to take a quick look at a situation and provide a quick answer if one is possible (see note 1 below).
So BEFORE making an offer that is easy to refuse, someone in the OP's position should consider:
A. Writing to the Complainant
AND the case manager stating that they would prefer to transfer the domain name
UNDER UDRP RULE 17 than respond to the UDRP. Copying the WIPO case manager will cause WIPO to issue a form email which they have, that explains the procedure. This way, the complainant will receive a note from WIPO telling them that this is a normal procedure, and the respondent is on record saying they want the name transferred. This decreases the likelihood the complainant will perceive the offer as some kind of a trick.
B.
Mention the $1000 refund. Again, a lot of folks don't know about the refund, which WIPO will also confirm in their email. Now, I have to be honest here. The complainant's attorney has already billed their client for the full amount of drafting the complaint and paying the fees. The complainant's attorney then finds out they can (a) get the domain name right away and (b) get $1000 that is up to them to tell their client about.
C. Point out that the transfer under Rule 17 can proceed within a few days. Going to a decision will require waiting out the 20 day response time, and then the 10 day post-decision wait time, simply to get to the exact same point where the registrar will be ready to transfer the name.
If they still say no, then follow up with a note stating that it is your Response to the UDRP to request transfer of the domain name, and pointing out that the complainant refused to accept transfer of the domain name. Upon realizing that the roles in the dispute have now reversed such that the respondent is requesting transfer and the complainant is saying "no", some complainants will come around and take that $1000 check.
As with a lot of things, it's not about what you do, but is about how you do it. Does it work all of the time? No. But even if you don't come to an agreement, the UDRP caseload has gotten a bit backed up this year and you also have to consider the perspective of the panelist. The panelist is going to cash that $1000 check the complainant didn't want. The panelist is a lawyer who usually charges by the hour. They don't get bonus points for putting extra time into these things. If they see a complaint that is 15 pages long with 20 sets of Annexes, and a submission from the other side saying "go ahead and transfer the name" then that panelist has a choice of how they are going to spend the hours of their day.
Like most questions about the UDRP, this one is discussed in the WIPO Overview, which is organized as an FAQ, includes citations to relevant cases, and can be read in one sitting. This item, and the previous one in the list, are relevant:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item410
4.10 How do panels handle cases involving a respondent’s informal or unilateral consent for the transfer of the domain name to the complainant outside the “standard settlement process” described above?
Where parties to a UDRP proceeding have not been able to settle their dispute prior to the issuance of a panel decision using the “standard settlement process” described above, but where the respondent has nevertheless given its consent on the record to the transfer (or cancellation) remedy sought by the complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. In such cases, the panel gives effect to an understood party agreement as to the disposition of their case (whether by virtue of deemed admission, or on a no-fault basis).
In some cases, despite such respondent consent, a panel may in its discretion still find it appropriate to proceed to a substantive decision on the merits. Scenarios in which a panel may find it appropriate to do so include (i) where the panel finds a broader interest in recording a substantive decision on the merits – notably recalling UDRP paragraph 4(b)(ii) discussing a pattern of bad faith conduct, (ii) where while consenting to the requested remedy the respondent has expressly disclaimed any bad faith, (iii) where the complainant has not agreed to accept such consent and has expressed a preference for a recorded decision, (iv) where there is ambiguity as to the scope of the respondent’s consent, or (v) where the panel wishes to be certain that the complainant has shown that it possesses relevant trademark rights.
Which is the best price?
Three word .COM BabyAndBeyond.com had been sold for $350 000
1Money.com Sold For $40,000 USD At Atom
Domainer Twitter has been spicy this past week
Those who Outbound, how can I make life easier?
Most famous/useful site using .extention other than .com .net .org or any .cctld
NamePros Parking adds Buy Now (and much more)
Squadhelp is now "atom"
