Dispute Resolution Policy

01 Scope

This Dispute Resolution Policy applies to disputes over the registration or use of UDR labels, including trademark, service mark, trade name, institutional name, personal name, geographic name, governmental name, educational name, reserved-name, premium-name, eligibility, and upstream-compliance disputes.

The policy is UDRP-inspired but adapted for a policy-driven domain registry. It does not replace court action, arbitration, registrar complaint channels, upstream registry procedures, or mandatory legal processes that may apply to a parent domain.

02 UDRP-inspired Rights Complaints

A complainant seeking transfer, cancellation, or suspension based on rights abuse should provide evidence addressing the core UDRP-inspired elements used by UDR for review.

• The disputed label is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, service mark, trade name, personal name, institutional name, or other legally protected identifier in which the complainant has rights.
• The registrant has no apparent rights or legitimate interests in the disputed label.
• The label was registered or is being used in bad faith, including impersonation, diversion, fraudulent sale, credential theft, misleading affiliation, warehousing, or abusive resale.

03 Standing and Evidence

A complainant must identify the disputed label, requested remedy, asserted rights, evidence of harm, evidence of registrant bad faith or lack of legitimate interest, and contact details for notices. UDR may request translations, corporate records, trademark certificates, screenshots, DNS records, invoices, correspondence, or declarations.

• False, misleading, incomplete, or abusive complaints may be rejected and may be considered in future registry decisions.
• UDR may consolidate related complaints involving the same registrant, registrar, pattern, complainant, or abuse infrastructure.
• UDR may preserve the status quo through a dispute lock while a complaint, court action, upstream review, or settlement is pending.

04 Registrant Response

When practical and not harmful to an active abuse investigation, UDR or the sponsoring registrar will notify the registrant and provide a response deadline. The registrant may submit evidence of authority, legitimate interest, descriptive use, fair use, prior use, authorization, remediation, or other defenses.

• Failure to respond may allow UDR to proceed based on available evidence.
• A response does not guarantee reinstatement or transfer denial when upstream rules, court orders, abuse evidence, or public-interest concerns require action.

05 Eligibility and Upstream Disputes

Some disputes turn on eligibility, reserved-name status, public authority, educational status, geographic status, or upstream registry requirements rather than trademark rights. UDR may apply a documentary review process and may require independent confirmation from the sponsoring registrar, upstream registrar, upstream registry, regulator, or competent authority.

• AC.GR labels implying academic or research status may require institutional proof.
• AFNIC-family labels implying public services, official status, or protected terms may require authorization.
• Reserved or premium classification disputes are resolved under UDR registry discretion unless a binding legal decision requires a different result.

06 Remedies

Available remedies include no action, correction, customer notice, monitoring, hold, lock, suspension, transfer, deletion, reserved classification, premium classification correction, refund where appropriate, registrar action plan, or referral to a third-party process.

• UDR does not award money damages under this policy.
• UDR may implement a court order, arbitration award, recognized dispute-provider decision, upstream registry instruction, or settlement agreement where authentic and applicable.
• UDR may delay implementation for a short operational period to verify authenticity, preserve evidence, or coordinate registrar transition.

07 Review, Appeal, and Court Proceedings

A party may request internal review by providing new material evidence, proof of procedural error, or evidence that the remedy conflicts with law or upstream policy. UDR may maintain a lock during review. Court orders and competent-authority decisions supersede internal review where binding on UDR or the relevant registrar.