Module 4

MODULE 4
DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES RSOLUTION MECHANISMS

4.1. NATURE OF DISPUTE
One of the most contentious issues arising from the emergence of the internet as a commercial
body was the settlement of disputes over domain names. The unlimited emergence of the internet
is obviously in contradiction with the very bureaucratic nature of trademark law. The
multinational dimension of the Internet makes arbitrary enforcement of trademark law extremely
difficult, as trademark law changes very widely from country to country. Despite this clear
distinction, there have been disputes between the domain name holders and the trademark
holders.
For trademark owners such as radio, television or billboards, the internet is yet another medium,
and so domain names should be protected by trademark rights. This contingency allows the point
that domain names are synonymous with trademarks. By comparison, domain name holders
firmly support the "first-come, first-served" registry scheme. This contingency is of the view that
their seniority would prohibit them from giving up these names to a trademark owner.1
The rivalry between these two groups has led to several disagreements. This type of classic case
is characterized by trademark owners who sue for misuse, dilution, unfair competition or similar
causes of action. Domain name owners contend that there is no rule that specifies domain names
are synonymous with marks, and in fact, trademarks are fundamentally territorial, while the
Internet is the reverse.

1 Gabriel A. Battista, Internet Domain Name - Trademark Protection (1997), Congressional Testimony.

4.2. UNIFORM DOMAIN-NAME DISPUTE-RESOLUTION POLICY

4.2.1. General Information

In response to the complaints regarding intellectual property issues pertaining to domain names
and the rise in number of illegal domain name registrations, the ICANN adopted the Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Protocol (UDRP) on 24th October 1999, thus providing an
alternative legal mechanism for domain name disputes.

Unlike traditional arbitration hearings, which are subject to a negotiated arrangement between
the parties involved on appropriate dispute resolution, the UDRP is a quasi-administrative
process expressly developed for disputes over domain names. Domain name holders adhere to
the provisions by submitting to their preferred domain name registrar's domain name registry
regulations.2 The hearings are purposely not in the form of court hearings, but rather preclude
both the conduct of an in-person trial and the impartial collection of evidence. Extensive
preclusive laws significantly restrict the idea of a thorough court hearing and ensure that the
proceedings are conducted efficiently. It separates the UDRP not only from the ordinary court
cases but from formal arbitration as well.

It is these procedural restrictions which also represent the benefits of the proceedings. The
UDRP procedure typically provides a quicker and cheaper way to resolve a dispute about
registering and using an Internet domain name. The process is far more relaxed than lawsuits,
and decision-makers are professionals in fields such as copyright law, domain name issues, e-
commerce, the Internet, and lawsuits. Practice shows that in the absence of exceptional
circumstances the resolution of a UDRP dispute takes on average no more than two months. The
procedural costs are also low compared with the costs generally incurred in international disputes
concerning intellectual property law.

The filing of UDRP proceedings imposes a "lock status" on the disputed domain name which
prevents the transfer to a third party. Moreover, when the respondent files the case before the
ordinary courts within the time limit specified, the ruling merely needs to be reported to the
registrar, who is then expected to enforce the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal. As seen

2 Dr. Torsten Bettinger, LL.M., attorney at law, Bettinger Scheider Schramm, Munich, and panelist at the WIPO
Arbitration and Mediation Center.

by the vast number of lawsuits lodged with dispute resolution services following the UDRP's
entry into force on 1 December 1999, in legal practice the UDRP has established itself as the
most relevant alternate dispute resolution mechanism for domain names.

4.2.2. Timeline for the Formulation and Implementation of the Uniform Domain-
Name Dispute-Resolution Policy3

i. On 5th June, 1998 – The U.S. Government issues its White Paper, calling for creation of
not-for-profit corporation (later ICANN) to handle consensus-based technical
management of the Internet's infrastructure. The White Paper also states that the U.S.
Government will ask the WIPO to conduct a consultative study on domain
name/trademark issues.

ii. From 8th July, 1998 to 30th April, 1999 - WIPO conducts its consultative process.

iii. On 30th April 1999 - WIPO delivers its final report to ICANN. This report covers several
topics, including dispute resolution. On dispute resolution, the WIPO report recommends
institution of a policy followed uniformly by all registrars in the .com, .net, and .org
TLDs.

iv. On 27th May, 1999 - The ICANN Board adopts a resolution referring the
recommendations of chapter 3 of the WIPO final report to the ICANN Domain
Name Supporting Organization (DNSO).

v. On 12th June, 1999 - The DNSO Names Council forms Working Group A to study
the WIPO recommendations regarding dispute resolution.

vi. On 29th July, 1999 - Working Group A submits its final report to the Names
Council recommending establishment of a uniform domain-name dispute-resolution
policy for all registrars.

3 Timeline for the Formulation and Implementation of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy,
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/schedule-2012-02-25-en.

vii. On 4th August, 1999 - The DNSO Names Council adopts the Working Group A report
(with minor revisions) and sends it to the ICANN Board as a consensus recommendation.

viii. On 20th August, 1999 - A group of registrars submits a Model Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy for Voluntary Adoption by Registrars.

ix. On 24th August, 1999 - ICANN staff presents ICANN Staff Report: Uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy for gTLD Registrars to the Internet community and the ICANN Board
before the 25 August public forum held in Santiago, Chile, on the dispute-resolution
policy.

x. On 26th August, 1999 - The ICANN Board accepts the DNSO recommendation for
establishment of a uniform domain-name dispute-resolution policy. The Board
instructs ICANN staff to convene a small drafting committee and prepare implementation
documents for approval after public comment, using the registrars' Model Policy as a
starting point.

xi. On 29th September, 1999 - ICANN staff posts its Staff Report on Implementation
Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, together with implementation
documents consisting of the written UDRP and uniform rules for public comment until
13 October 1999.

xii. On 24th October, 1999 - The ICANN Board approves the implementation documents, as
revised in accordance with public comments. This approval was based on the Second
Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy,
presented to the Board on 24 October.

xiii. On 29th November, 1999 - First dispute-resolution service provider WIPO approved.

xiv. On 1st December, 1999 - First day complaints may be submitted to dispute-resolution
providers for disputes involving domain names sponsored by most registrars (this did not
include America Online, the NameIT Corp., or Network Solutions).

xv. On 9th December, 1999 - First proceeding (worldwrestlingfederation.com) commenced.

xvi. On 23rd December, 1999 - Second dispute-resolution service provider (National
Arbitration Forum--NAF) approved.

xvii. On 1st January, 2000 - Third dispute-resolution service provider
(Disputes.org/eResolution consortium--DeC) approved.

xviii. On 3rd January, 2000 - First day for submission of complaints to the dispute-resolution
providers for disputes involving domain names sponsored by America Online, the
NameIT Corp., and Network Solutions.

xix. On 14th January, 2000 - First proceeding (worldwrestlingfederation.com) decided.

xx. On 22nd May, 2000 - Fourth dispute-resolution service provider (CPR Institute for
Dispute Resolution--CPR) approved.

xxi. On 16th October, 2000 - Approval of the Disputes.org/eResolution consortium as a
dispute-resolution provider transferred to eResolution (eRes).

xxii. On 30th November, 2001 - eResolution ceases accepting proceedings.

xxiii. On 28th February, 2002 - Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre begins
accepting proceedings.

4.2.3. Inception Of UDNDRP

The policy of UDNDR came up in 1999, after the United States Department of Commerce gave
ICANN the authority to control domain name registrations.4 Prior to this, the NSI had its own
dispute resolution policy, created in 1995, according to which the complainant had to give notice
to the registrant that there had been a violation of trademark, following which the registrant
would have to attempt to prove that she owned a trademark in the contested name, failing which
the NSI would put the domain name on hold till resolution was reached between parties, either

4 Supra Note 2.

through agreement or through litigation.5 This was obviously problematic as the NSI did not
actually provide a process for the resolution of disputes in the first place. It was also argued that
this policy facilitated reverse domain name hijacking through the ease by which the alleged
infringer’s domain name could be placed on hold, and the limited defence available to the
registrant consisting solely of showing that she owned the trademark in the domain name in
question.

In 1999, after the inception of ICANN, the NTIA, through a White Paper, called for a study on
domain names and trademark issues from the WIPO, inviting the WIPO to-

(1) develop recommendations for a uniform approach to resolving trademark/domain name
disputes involving cyberpiracy (as opposed to conflicts between trademark holders with
legitimate competing rights),

(2) recommend a process for protecting famous trademarks in the generic top-level domains,

(3) evaluate the effects, based on studies conducted by independent organizations.6

In this White Paper, the NTIA acknowledged that the rights of trademark holders were getting
affected, while at the same time conceding that there were also other legitimate rights to counter
these that needed protection.7

In September 1999, the draft of the implementation documents for this policy was prepared, and
after public comment, ICANN adopted a second set of implementation documents, resulting in
the UDRP, adopted in January 2000. The UDRP is a policy that has been adopted by all ICANN-
accredited registrars, and it is applicable between the registrar and the customer.8

Paragraph 4(a) outlines when the domain-name holder is required to submit to a mandatory
administrative proceeding, in the event that there is a complaint made such that

5 NSI Policy Statement,
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp08.htm
6 NTIA, Statement of Policy on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses,
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/1998/statement-policy-management-internet-names-and-
addresses
7 Supra Note 3.
8 ICANN, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (1999),
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the complainant has rights;

(ii) the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
and

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the holder of said
name.

All these three elements must be present in the complaint. “Bad faith” as used in Paragraph
4(a)(iii) has been defined in the policy to cover any of four instances – first, where the
circumstances indicate that the domain name was acquired for the sole purpose of transferring to
the complainant (the legitimate owner of the trademark) for excessive consideration (i.e., not in
cases where the consideration covered reasonable costs); second, where the registration was to
prevent the owner of the mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name; third,
where it was registered to disrupt a competitor’s business; and fourth, where it was registered to
create a likelihood of confusion to attract internet users towards the website for commercial gain.
This is a non-exclusive list, and arbitrators have added to the definition.

4.2.4. Defenses

ICANN provides for three affirmative defences for the domain-name holder in whose name the
domain has been registered.9

1. One protects those who can demonstrate that they intended to use the domain
name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to them
receiving the notice.10

2. The second defense is that the domain name holder has acquired domain name
recognition despite the lack of a trademark.11

9 Paragraph 4(c), UDRP, 2000.
10 Paragraph 4(c)(i), UDRP, 2000.
11 Paragraph 4(c)(ii), UDRP, 2000.

3. The third is that the holder of the domain name legitimately uses the name for
non-commercial means, or its use counts as reasonable use without any
commercial advantage in intended to mislead customers.12

It drew from US Trademark Law at the time when the UDRP was adopted, when a solely non-
commercial usage was seen as a clear protection against a claim of infringement; however, it
placed a cap on this by allowing for the principle of tarnishment as a limitation on such non-
commercial usage.13

4.2.5. Provider

The legislation establishes the "Provider" agency, i.e., an administrative dispute resolution
provider, which grants the plaintiff the right to choose the provider from among those that
ICANN accepts.14

Currently, there are five such providers15 –

• The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre;

• The National Arbitration Forum;

• WIPO;

• The Czech Arbitration Court Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes; and

• The Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution.

The selected provider then continues to conduct the proceeding, selecting a panel for the same.
Rules of Procedure regulate the proceedings.16

4.2.6. Other Administrative Matters

12 Paragraph 4(c)(iii), UDRP, 2000.
13 Supra Note 3.
14 Paragraph 4(d), UDRP, 2000.
15 ICANN, List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers(2012),
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/providers-6d-2012-02-25-en
16 Rules for UDRP (2013), https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en

In terms of costs, the fees are to be borne by the complainant, unless the domain name holder
chooses to expand the administrative panel in size from one to three.17 ICANN itself refrains
from participation in the proceedings.18 This proceeding, most importantly, does not bar the
jurisdiction of the courts.

Trademark Clearinghouse- The Trademark Clearinghouse was conceptualized in 2012, when
ICANN announced that it was going to introduce a new gTLD programme to expand the number
of gTLD beyond the existing 21 known ones. This new policy allows anyone, for a fee, to
register any new top-level domain.19 ICANN had introduced this policy as a means to protect
trademark owner’s rights to prevent overreliance on .com, and to allow trademark holders to
apply for protections to create a secure online location for their brand.20 ICANN envisioned this
as reducing the problem of cybersquatting and subsequent dilution of the brand.

4.3. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVIDERS

4.3.1. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

The Arbitration and Mediation Center is an international resource for timely and cost-effective
alternatives to court litigation of IP disputes, an administrator of cases, and a provider of legal
and organizational expertise.21

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center provides time- and cost-efficient mechanisms to
resolve internet domain name disputes, without the need for court litigation. This service
includes the WIPO-initiated Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), under
which the WIPO Center has processed some 44,000 cases.22

17 Paragraph 4(g), UDRP, 2000.
18 Paragraph 4(h), UDRP, 2000.
19 Benjamin Boroughf, The New Dot Context: How to Mitigate Trademark Concerns in ICANN’s New
gTLD Program (2014), Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society.
20 K. Miller, Preliminary Report Of Dennis Carlton Regarding Impact Of New Gtlds On Consumer
Welfare” (2009).
21 WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center https://www.wipo.int/about-
wipo/en/activities_by_unit/index.jsp?id=1012.
22 Domain Name Dispute Resolution, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/.

WIPO Domain Name Panelists- To help parties to a domain name dispute select appropriately
qualified panelists, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has established a list of
persons who have agreed to serve on WIPO Domain Name Administrative Panels. WIPO
panelists come from different regions of the world and are well-reputed for their impartiality,
sound judgement and experience as decision-makers, as well as their substantive experience in
the areas of intellectual property law, electronic commerce and the Internet. Each panelist's
professional profile has been made available. Some of these panelists also appear on the lists of
other ICANN-accredited dispute resolution service providers.

Before making a panelist appointment, the Center checks with each prospective panelist whether
there are any facts or circumstances, past or present, or that could arise in the foreseeable future,
that might call in to question that person's independence in the eyes of one or both of the parties
in the administrative proceeding. Taking into consideration the envisioned procedural schedule
in a case, the Center also checks whether the prospective panelist is able to commit the time
required to discharge his or her duties responsibly and within the required deadlines. Finally, the
Center requires all prospective panelists to complete and submit a Statement of Acceptance and
Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.23

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center- Based in Geneva, Switzerland, with a further office in
Singapore, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center was established in 1994 to offer ADR
options for the resolution of international commercial disputes between private parties.
Developed by leading experts in cross-border dispute settlement, the arbitration, mediation and
expert determination procedures offered by the Center are widely recognized as particularly
appropriate for technology, entertainment and other disputes involving intellectual property.
Since 2010 the Center has an office at Maxwell Chambers in Singapore.24

23 “WIPO Domain Name Panelists” https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/panel.html
24 WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/background.html.

4.3.2. National Arbitration Forum (NAF)

National Arbitration Forum is a dispute resolution company which is composed of more than
1,600 arbitrators and mediators who are legal practitioners and former judges located in United
States and 35 other countries worldwide. FORUM is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

In February 2013, The National Arbitration Forum was chosen as the first Uniform Rapid
Suspension System provider by ICANN for its New gTLD Program. The URS acts similar to
the UDRP,and is a trademark protection mechanism whereby trademark holders can immediately
take action against offending domains. In its announcement, ICANN described FORUM's
proposal as "outstanding", and noted its "proven track record boasting resolution of over 19,000
claims in 12+ years of administering UDRP cases. Additionally, FORUM has already developed,
and is currently operating a TLD-specific rapid relief system."25

The FORUM aims to provide a fair, efficient, and effective system for the resolution of
commercial and civil disputes in the United States and worldwide.

The company provides arbitration and mediation services for businesses in the United States and
other countries all over the world. Forum also provides additional ADR services which include
Early Neutral Evaluation, Settlement Conferences, Complex Panels, Special Masters, Online
Resolution, Expedited Arbitration, Expedited Mediation and International Arbitration.

4.3.3. Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC)

ADNDRC was established to provide dispute resolution services related to the disputed gTLDs,
the TLDs approved by ICANN. On 3rd December, 2001, ICANN named ADNDRC as the
administrator in a lawsuit over the domain name.

ADNDRC is one of only four dispute resolution service providers worldwide, and the first and
only one in Asia to offer dispute resolution services related to gTLDs.

After October 2009, the AIAC runs and maintains the ADNDRC which has office in Kuala
Lumpur. Disputes handled by the ADNDRC (Kuala Lumpur Office) shall be governed by the

25 Icann Appoints First Urs Provider https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-
20feb13-en.

UDRP and the UDRP Rules and also by the Supplemental Dispute Rules of the ADNDRC
Domain Name.26

Additionally, AIAC will offer the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system as part of its dispute
resolution services. This is an extension to the current UDRP prosecutions and must be extended
compulsorily to gTLD conflicts which meet the required requirements. There is also the
Agreement on Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution (TM-PDDRP) and Registrar
Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP). In the former, it is for competing gTLDs that the
action is taken against the registry operator and in the latter, registered name holders are to be
permitted to pass their domain name registrations between registrars.

Administrative process is the approach selected by ICANN under the UDRP and UDRP rules for
the settlement of disputes concerning.com,.net,.org and other domain names in the gTLD
domain. The administrative process will basically only be based on the documents provided by
the parties with an in-person hearing which occurs only in exceptional cases.27

4.4. .IN DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY (INDRP)

4.4.1 Definitions Given under INDRP28

“Arbitrator refers to the experts who have expertise on computer and/or laws, possess a high
sense of professional ethics and are capable of rendering independent and unbiased decisions in
domain name disputes.”

“Complainant refers to the person who has complaint against the Registrant.”

“.IN Registry: Wherever used in this policy and the rules hereunder .IN Registry refers to the
National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), a company registered under section 25 of the Indian
Companies Act 1956.”

26 Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre
https://www.aiac.world/Domain-Name-Complaints-ADNDRC.
27 Ibid.
28 .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP), (2005),
https://www.registry.in/IN%20Domain%20Name%20Dispute%20Resolution%20Policy%20%28INDRP%29

“Person includes an individual, institution, organization, company, partnership or any other
legal entity etc.”
“Registrar shall mean a domain name registrar who is duly accredited with the .IN Registry
pursuant to a Registrar Accreditation Agreement and is listed on the website of the .IN
Registry, www.registry.in.”
"Registrant is a holder of the .in Internet domain name.”
4.4.2. Objective of INDRP
This INDRP Policy sets out the terms and conditions for resolving a dispute arising from
registration and use of the .in Internet Domain Name between the Registrant and the
Complainant.
4.4.3. Representation of The Registrant
By applying to register a domain name or by requiring a Registrar to retain or extend a
registration of a domain name, the Registrar shall serve and warrant that29:
(A) statements which are complete and accurate in the Registrant's application form for domain
name registration;
(B) the registration of a domain name shall not, to the Registrant 's knowledge, infringe or
otherwise violate the rights of any third party;
(C) the registrar does not use the domain name for any unlawful purpose;
(D) the registrant shall not intentionally use the domain name in violation of any laws or
regulations applicable.
It is the duty of the Registrant to decide if the domain name registration of the Registrant
infringes or breaches the rights of another.

29 Ibid.

4.4.4. Grounds to File a Complaint

Any person who considers that a registered domain name conflicts with his legitimate rights or
interests may, at the following property, file a complaint with the. IN Registry30:

(i) the domain name of the registrant is identical or confusingly similar to that of a brand,
trademark or service mark over which the claimant has rights;

(ii) the registrant does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name;

(iii) the domain name of the Registrant has been registered or is in bad faith.

In the case that a Complainant files a petition to the. IN Registrar in compliance with this Policy
and Regulations, the Registrant is entitled to apply a petition to a compulsory arbitration process.

4.4.5. Dispute Resolution Procedure Under INDRP

The. IN Registry shall select an Arbitrator from the Registry-kept list of arbitrators.

The .IN Registry will post the List of Arbitrators online on its website at www.registry.in.

The arbitrator shall administer the arbitration hearings according to the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act 1996 as amended from time to time and also in compliance with this
Legislation and the guidelines provided for therein.

4.4.6. Evidence of Registration and use of Domain Name in Bad Faith

For the purposes of Paragraph 4(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without
limitation, if found by the Arbitrator to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use
of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name
primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name
registration to the Complainant, who bears the name or is the owner of the trademark or service
mark, or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the
Registrant's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

30 Supra Note 89.

(ii) the Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark
or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the
Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) by using the domain name, the Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users
to the Registrant's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with
the Complainant's name or mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the
Registrant's website or location or of a product or service on the Registrant's website or location.

4.4.7. Registrant's Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name

Any of the following circumstances, in articular but without limitation, if found by the Arbitrator
to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the Registrant's
rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purposes of Paragraph 4 (ii) :

(i) before any notice to the Registrant of the dispute, the Registrant's use of, or demonstrable
preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

(ii) the Registrant (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known
by the domain name, even if the Registrant has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Registrant is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name,
without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark
or service mark at issue.

4.4.8. Fees

Except as otherwise stated in this policy or the Rules hereunder, all fees charged by the .IN
Registry in connection with any dispute pursuant to this Policy shall be paid by the Complainant.

4.4.9. Involvement of Registry and the Registrar in Arbitration Proceedings

The Registry and the Registrars shall not participate in the domain name dispute resolution
proceedings in any capacity or manner other than providing the information relevant to the

registration and use of the domain name upon the request of the Arbitrator. Neither the Registry
nor the Registrar shall be liable for any decisions rendered by an Arbitrator.

4.4.10 Remedies

The remedies available to a Complainant pursuant to any proceeding before an Arbitrator shall
be limited to requiring the cancellation of the Registrant's domain name or the transfer of the
Registrant's domain name registration to the Complainant. Costs as may be deemed fit may also
be awarded by the Arbitrator.

4.4.11. Notification and Publication

All decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an
Arbitration Panel decides in an exceptional case to edit portions of its decision.

4.4.12. Transfers During a Dispute

The Registrant shall not transfer a domain name registration to another holder:

(i) In case an Arbitration proceeding is initiated pursuant to this policy, for a period of fifteen
(15) working days ("working day" means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public
holiday) after such proceeding is concluded; or

(ii) during a pending court proceeding or arbitration commenced regarding the domain name,
unless the party to whom the domain name registration is being transferred agrees, in writing, to
be bound by the decision of the court or arbitrator.

The Registry reserves the right to cancel any transfer of a domain name registration to another
holder that is made in violation of this paragraph.

4.4.12. Policy Modifications

The Government of India reserves the right to add, delete, amend or modify this Policy (and the
rules framed thereunder) at any time. The revised policy shall be posted on the website of the
registry at www.registry.in at least Fifteen (15) calendar days before it becomes effective. The
complaints submitted prior to the date of implementation of the revised policy would be
entertained and decided in accordance with the policy in force at the time of filing the complaint.

However, with effect from the date the revised policy comes in existence all complaints filed
would be dealt with as per the revised policy. The Registrants shall be bound by the terms and
conditions of the policy, rules, guidelines, bylaws framed by the .IN Registry from time to time.