WIPO administered a record-breaking number of domain name disputes in 2023, handling nearly 6,200 complaints—an increase of over 7% from 2022 and a remarkable 68% rise since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes many noteworthy cases that successfully consolidated multiple respondents.
Complainants in UDRP disputes are allowed to include multiple domain names against a single respondent into a dispute, saving valuable time and resources. However, domain names often have different respondent’s details, even if there is a strong suspicion that they belong to the same entity.
To overcome this, complainants must argue that the domain names are under ‘common control’. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), Guideline 4.11, discusses how panels address consolidation scenarios while remaining in line with paragraph 3(c) and 10(e) of the UDRP Rules.
Recently, complainants have been recognising a pattern between different respondents that frequently appear in domain disputes together, due to successful past consolidation. Complainant may decide to use this as evidence in future consolidation cases. But how much value do panels give to previously consolidated respondents when deciding a successful domain consolidation? Can we say that there is an evolving presumption adopted by panels that domains owned by particular respondent(s) are likely under common control, when those parties have been successfully consolidated before?
In this article, we look at the example of Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited (Web CC), based in Malaysia. This web service provider and proxy registrant has been involved as a respondent in more than 300 previous UDRP proceedings to date. Through the years, Web CC has repeatedly been consolidated in disputes involving registrants that register domains using German details, that were likely found to be aliases.
In 2023, the largest UDRP case filed with WIPO that year involved the respondent Web CC. In WIPO D2023-2969, 428 domains were successfully consolidated by the complainant, internationally renowned shoe retailer Clarks. Of these domains, 239 were registered by Web CC and 155 were associated with fake, stolen or incomplete German addresses. These domains were successfully consolidated through similar content and technical data.
The Panel accepted the evidence presented for consolidation including similar or identical content and composition. More interestingly, the Panel when as far to highlight the pattern between Web CC and the domains registered using German aliases:
This was not the first time these Respondent(s) had been successfully consolidated by Clarks. In 2022, the Panel approved the consolidation of 119 domains, controlled by either Web CC or German aliases. The Panel actively recognised this pattern by dividing the domains into two underlying categories: “…those whose Whois details are united by a particular registrant pattern (65 domain names) [German aliases], and those held by the same controlling registrant (54 domain names) [Web CC]. The majority of the Disputed Domain Names fall within the first category, whose registrations are associated with fake, stolen or incomplete postal addresses (e.g., with street names that cannot be found in the applicable town/municipality), many of the registrants supposedly located in Germany…”.
It is clear that the Panel placed value upon those two categories, as it used it as a reference point to build additional evidence from such as, for example, hosting characteristics. The Panel relied on “the same IP address is presently used to host five domain names, four of which are among the Disputed Domain Names of this case and of those four different registrants, three include fake German address details and one is under “Web Commerce Communications Limited”, which supports the contention that they have a common controller”. This shows that whilst not a basis for a successful consolidation, the grouping of Respondents is certainly a starting point for Panels in accepting common control.
More recently, in WIPO D2024-1208, the complaining party, Italian fashion-house Prada, successfully consolidated 95 domains, some registered by Web CC and German aliases. The Panel noted numerous comparisons, such as the use of “privacy protection services and the underlying registrants’ numerous similarities such as names, email or postal addresses, state/province and/or country, a pattern of irregularities…”. On this occasion, the Panel made no explicit reference to Web CC or German aliases, but it is clear that the same comparisons were made between these respondent details as the consolidation was once again successful.
A principle has not yet been stipulated when multiple respondents have been involved in the same dispute in the context of a domain consolidation. A similar principle does exist, however, in the context of a panel considering a respondent to have engaged in a pattern of conduct when they have been involved in at least two previous instances of abusive domain registrations (see WIPO Overview 3.0, Guideline 3.1.2). It is interesting to see a pattern of respondent grouping in large consolidation disputes, and whether panels will explicitly set a precedent that being consolidated with a particular entity in a previous proceeding automatically evidences a successful consolidation in a subsequent one.
But ultimately, determining whether domains are under common control is contingent upon a complainant’s ability to sufficiently evidence across a range of factors including, for example:
While the presence of particular respondents together in large domain disputes is an interesting pattern that may influence a panel’s decision to accept common control, it should not be solely relied upon.
While the UDRP strives for procedural efficiency, consolidation must remain fair and equitable to all parties. This requires the complainant to submit a sound and substantiated basis for claim.
Emily-Jane James
Legal Adviser
We can customise a solution to fit your business needs.
+44 (0) 1908 200022
+1 703 574 5313