For over 15 years, UDRP panels have debated who is responsible for content that appears on registrar default landing pages.



Some panels say it's ultimately the respondent's responsibility, while others say the content doesn't reflect the respondent's intent. The recent decathlons.org dispute raises the issue once again, and analyzing the facts can shed light on the question at hand.

In the dispute, French sports retailer Decathlon alleged that the domain name was used in bad faith to redirect users to a parking page with links related to Decathlon's business. The landing page in question appears to be created by NameCheap, the registrar, showcasing sponsored listings served automatically by a third party, Parkingcrew.

UDRP panels have two broad approaches to determine responsibility for landing page links. One holds the respondent responsible, while the other does not. This comment will explore different fact patterns to determine when it's appropriate to hold the respondent responsible for the landing page links.

The degree of fame and distinctiveness of the complainant's mark and the sophistication of the respondent are key factors that determine if holding the respondent responsible is justified. If both are high, then the links likely reflect the respondent's intent. However, if both are low, attributing bad faith to the respondent may not be justified.

This analysis also highlights a recurring problem in UDRP jurisprudence where holdings in one case are indiscriminately applied to others despite significant differences in facts.

Regarding the third element, it is established that the claim by the Respondent, Uniregistry (GoDaddy), about placing sponsored click-through links on the website to which the domain name resolves, is irrelevant. This is because the Respondent is responsible for the content of the resolving website.

Although this may appear as strong precedent for holding the Respondent responsible for the content on a Registrar provided landing page, the decisive fact in the <airsculpting .com> dispute is that the Respondent intentionally monetized the domain name with advertising. The domain is parked at a monetization service provider so that the Respondent can understand the relevant traffic to the domain name.

Context matters, and it is important to consider the fact that the Respondent chose to monetize the domain name using a company that offers both registrar and monetization services. A holding taken out of context may not be applicable.

In the <decathlons .org> dispute, the Complainant cites the <baringsuk.com> dispute from 2020, where the Panel found that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain. However, the facts in the <baringsuk.com> and <decathlons.org> disputes are different. The UK-based Barings mark is highly distinctive, and there is no plausible legitimate commercial use for the domain name. On the other hand, "decathlons" is a widely used dictionary word, making it plausible for non-infringing commercial uses.

Where the facts differ, the holdings also differ. In the comteam.biz dispute, it was found that the Complainant's "COMTEAM" mark was not highly distinctive, and the Respondent was not responsible for the content on the registrar provided parking page.