Quote:
|
Why is that, if I may ask ? Is NAF more lenient towards complaintants in instances where respodent doesnt even answer?
|
It is faster and the single-member panel fee is lower.
As Marc points out they obtain speed by making decisions at the staff level on matters that should be referred to a panel.
The point being that if your proceeding may require thought or become in any sense "unusual", the NAF may appear to be somewhat arbitrary.
For example, Marc is correct that a Panel has the power to decide the language of the Proceeding, and a Panel may decide to proceed in a language other than the registration agreement, in the presence of circumstances indicating it would be fair (English web page, other evidence Respondent would not be prejudiced, etc.). NAF doesn't let a case get to a panel unless it is filed in the language of the registration agreement, which essentially usurps the panel's discretion to decide otherwise.
One other downside of NAF is the general non-refundability of fees. You may file your case and find out that the Respondent is happy to transfer the domain name, and this can be done quickly. At WIPO, if the parties resolve the matter before a panel is appointed, a $1000 refund of the filing fee is paid back to the Complainant. At NAF, there is no refund of the "panel fee", even though no panel is appointed.