PPND cases are dominated by misuse of trademarks
Most of the domain name disputes for.id ccTLD being brought to PPND are related to trademarks. In most successful cases, the complainant has been able to prove that (i) the domain name is identical with or similar to the complainant's registered trademark; (ii) the respondent has no legal rights and/or legitimate interest in the domain name; and (iii) the respondent has registered or used the domain name in bad faith.
PPND considers all of the above arguments and evidence when making its decisions. PPND gives trademark owners an avenue to pursue action against parties that misuse trademark rights.
Non-trademark related cases
In some of the cases that were not related to trademarks, the complainant claimed that the conflicting domain name was identical or similar to the complainant's registered names, e.g., birth names of people, legal entities, business entities and/or organizations that are legally registered with government agencies and/or official institutions. Complainants argued that the respondent (i) had no legal rights and/or legitimate interest in the domain name; and (ii) had registered or used the domain name in bad faith.
According to PPND policy, PPND decisions can be in the form of (i) cancelation of the domain name; (ii) transfer of the domain name to the complainant; or (iii) making changes to the respondent's domain name. Based on our observation, most PPND decisions since 2015 were to transfer the domain name registrations to the complainant.
Procedural development in practice
While the PPND policy generally accommodates the principles contained in the ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), there are several differences between the two policies. For example, under the current PPND policy, PPND requires the complainant and respondent to undergo a mediation procedure before the complaint is brought to the panelist(s) for examination. Further, under the current policy, the whois data of a .id ccTLD can only be obtained upon request to PPND, stating the reason for requesting the whois data, e.g., to complete the data required in a PPND complaint.
Those differences arose from changes to the procedures for settling domain name cases over the years, and they are accepted by the complainants.
The purpose of establishing PPND was to provide rights holders with an alternative to district court civil claims to settle disputes related to .id ccTLD. This route has proven to be more efficient, particularly in terms of cost and timing.
According to PPND's official website, PPND has already handled and published around 35 domain name dispute cases. That shows that, after several years of implementation, PPND has indeed been chosen by rights holders as an alternative dispute resolution forum for domain name cases relating to .id ccTLD, instead of initiating civil claims at the district courts, which would involve full litigation proceedings.
© 2022 HHP Law Firm. All rights reserved. HHP Law Firm is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International. This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.