Redacted domain vs. redacted trademark in redacted UDRP due to porn

There are times when the domain name involved in a UDRP can be redacted per either party’s request. In the case of a redacted UDRP at the Forum (NAF) the Complainant’s name, the domain, and the trademark have all been redacted.

The reason: The Respondent who is apparently Chinese, built a load of pornographic content on the domain name. Per the (un)redacted details of the UDRP filing:

Complainant is a published author, artist and psychologist. She has used her name in publishing her work widely including the publication of over 10 books, a range of magazines, online journals, YouTube videos, lectures, readings and other literary and community endeavors related to creative arts. The complainant has been writing and publishing poetry for over twenty years, and first established a website presence in 2006 with the publication of her first book.

Apparently, the Complainant failed to renew the domain at some point and the Respondent registered it, then put pornography on it:

The domain name was seemingly registered in 2019 by Respondent and currently resolves to an online illicit /obscene website in an Asian language.  No legitimate business is attached to the domain name based on the current commerce presently promoted at the website, which is highly offensive, derogatory, defamatory, and harassing to Complainant, who is concerned that the website is traumatizing to individuals with whom Complainant may work as a writer/consultant and finds it personally and professionally distressing.

Meanwhile, the Complainant voiced her concerns about how filing the UDRP would associate her name and professional domain with pornography:

“My privacy is of grave concern, and I do not want my name to hold any association with the explicit obscene content on the website in question, nor any association with the respondent. I am terrified of the situation escalating. I have evidence and heard from individuals who have received threats in these situations. For this reason, I have a specific request for the Forum to aide my privacy, safety, and identity. I do understand the ICANN rules and that my name being attached to the domain already makes it “public,” but I please ask for consideration that the case be privately archived or my name (in all forms including the domain) be redacted. A full choice to archive the case privately would be my most desired outcome. It has taken me a very long time to make this application due to fears of repercussion, identity theft or further harassment and defamation.”

It was a first for the Forum’s panels, per the panelist:

The Panel has been unable to find a case in which a complainant’s name has been redacted from a UDRP decision. The only published decisions the Panel has found in which the name of a party has been redacted are decisions in which the domain name was registered in the name of a victim of identity theft, in which case it would be grossly unfair for the respondent to be publicly accused or found guilty of cybersquatting.

The panelist ordered the redacted domain to be transferred to the Complainant, via the inclusion of an unredacted addendum. The justification was laid out:

In the present case this decision vindicates Complainant from any suggestion that she has promoted pornography.

However, having regard to Complainant’s legitimate concerns as to her privacy and safety, the Panel determines that this is an exceptional case in which it is appropriate that the name of Complainant, her trademark and the Domain Name, which both contain her name, should be redacted from the published decision. 

The full decision can be seen here and yes, it’s fully redacted, other than the Respondent’s name that is “ludashi us / jack zhang.”

Copyright © 2022 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.

Comments

2 Responses to “Redacted domain vs. redacted trademark in redacted UDRP due to porn”
  1. RaTHeaD says:

    let’s hope the complaintant experiences the streisand effect. JMO/other opinions may differ.

  2. BullS says:

    what the monetary damages and how much money spent on this frivolous suit?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available