This proceeding well illustrates why the Policy should be used solely to redress clear abuses. Both sides have presented much evidence and much argument about technical aspects of coding, copying, linking, and other practices regularly used in creating and promoting websites. Both presentations have significant evidentiary gaps. In saying this the Panel intends no criticism or ulterior motive of either party; such gaps are inevitable when each side makes a detailed evidentiary presentation. In a proceeding limited by its charter in principle to a single submission by each party, with no live testimony and no cross-examination, there is simply no way for a panel fully to evaluate such a complex fact pattern. How, for example, is a panel to resolve whether similarity in code results from intentional copying (as Complainant alleges) or innocently from both partiesâ use of similar computer language for similar subjects (as Respondent alleges)? To the extent such questions are relevant â in this Panelâs experience, they do not go to the heart of most UDRP cases â they are more suited to litigation in the national courts. The Policy was intended to curb intentional cybersquatting, and the present proceeding is not such a case.
I like this statement and I can see this being refered to in future by respondants showing what the policy should be used for as opposed to trying a court case which seems to "dazzles" panelists in finding in favor of complainants.
