Editing Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (section)

== Examples ==
The UDRP process has been used in a number of well-known cases.

In the ''Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com"'' case (2000), the panel found against the defendant registrant based on all three of the above factors and ordered the domain name turned over to [[Madonna]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0847.html|title=WIPO Administrative Panel Decision: D2000-0847, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com"|website=www.wipo.int |date=October 12, 2000}}</ref> On the other hand, in the ''[[Gordon Sumner p/k/a Sting v Michael Urvan]]'' on the same year, American gamer Michael Urvan retained the right to domain name "sting.com" against the complaint of [[Sting (musician)|Sting]], since the panel found that 'sting' was a common dictionary word, it was not registered as a trademark, and that Urvan was using the name in [[good faith]] rather than holding it to ransom.<ref name="sting">{{cite news | publisher=ICANN | title=WIPO Administrative Panel Decision: d2000-0596, Gordon Sumner p/k/a Sting v Michael Urvan | url=https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0596.html |date=July 20, 2000 }}</ref>

In the ''Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale'' case (2000),<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0662.html|title=WIPO Administrative Panel Decision: D2000-0662|website=www.wipo.int}}</ref> the decision describes the practice of [[cybersquatting]]. The UDRP was adopted to prevent such behavior where a domain name registrant tries to extort money from trademark owners. In this case, the expert found that the evidence showed the registrant was not using the domain name “wal-martsucks.com” for a criticism site but instead try to get a payout from [[Walmart]].

The ''Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.'' case (2001)<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0903.html|title=WIPO Administrative Panel Decision: D2001-0903|website=www.wipo.int}}</ref> is one of the most cited<ref>{{Cite web |title=25 Most Cited Decisions in Complaint |url=https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/cases_cited.jsp?party=C |website=[[WIPO]]}}</ref> "[[fair use]]" decisions under the UDRP, it raises the question of whether an authorized (and non-authorized) sales or service agent of trademarked goods can use the trademark in a domain name.

''The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v. Adil Khasanov'' case (2020)<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2020/d2020-1074.html|title=WIPO Administrative Panel Decision: D2020-1074|website=www.wipo.int}}</ref> provides an example of the impact of the [[Covid-19]] crisis in the [[Domain Name System]], and the increasing number of fraudulent domain name registrations.