Hong Kong: The URS System – Recent Cases And What They Reveal

Last Updated: 9 July 2014
Article by Gabriela Kennedy and Karen H.F. Lee
Most Read Contributor in Hong Kong, September 2016

Keywords: Trade marks, China, copyright amendment bill, Hong Kong, Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance, URS System, Chinese Postal Bureau, Personal Data Protection Rules

In 2013, the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system was introduced as an alternative to the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (UDRP) system, with the intent of providing faster relief to trade mark owners in clear cut domain name disputes1. The URS system applies to new gTLDs or ccTLDs that have adopted the URS (i.e., Palau ".pw" domain names). So far, only the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) and the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) have been appointed by ICANN as URS service providers.

The first URS action to test the waters was in September 2013, and was related to the country code top level domain name "facebok.pw". Since then, there have been over 60 URS cases filed with the NAF and only three filed with the ADNDRC as at 13 June 2014.

This article will provide an overview of what some of the URS decisions reveal regarding the Examiners' approach to URS cases, and when a UDRP action may be preferred.

URS – The three Elements

In summary, the URS requires the complainant to prove the following three elements:

  1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark in which the complainant holds national or regional registration rights and which is in current use (or which has been validated by court proceedings or is specifically protected by statute or treaty);
  2. The respondent has no legitimate rights or interest in the domain name; and
  3. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

If the Examiner finds that the above elements have been established then the disputed domain name will be suspended. Note that under URS proceedings, the Examiner cannot order the transfer or cancellation of the domain name as with UDRP proceedings – the only remedy available is the suspension of the domain name for the remainder of its registration period.

Unsuccessful URS cases

The URS is intended to be used only in clear cut cases of trade mark abuse, where there are no open questions of fact. Looking at some of the URS cases where the complainant has been unsuccessful will help us analyse what the Examiners may consider to be "clear cut". As at 13 June 2014, there were only seven URS complaints, all filed with the NAF, which were denied (however one of these decisions was overturned on appeal, and the domain name was suspended). Interestingly, all seven of these URS complaints were originally determined by the same two Examiners.

  • In two of these URS cases2, the complainants stumbled at the first hurdle. Although the complainants had presented evidence of trade mark registrations corresponding to the relevant disputed domain names, these trade mark registrations were not held in the name of the complainants, and no evidence was provided regarding the relationship between the complainants and the trade mark holders. As a result, the Examiner denied these cases on the basis that the complainants had failed to establish the first element. Note that one of these cases was overturned on appeal, as the complainant was able to establish that it held relevant trade mark registrations, and was also able to satisfy the second and third element3. In the other five of these URS cases, the Examiner found that while the complainants were able to satisfy the first element, they had failed to establish the second and third elements by clear and convincing evidence, for one of the following reasons:

    • The complainant had failed to establish that its registered trade mark was well-known, and the disputed domain name only resolved to a generic parking page that did not include any references to the complainant or its registered trade mark4.
    • The disputed domain name reflected an abbreviation of the names of four towns to which the respondent provided services, and even though the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that contained links related to the complainant's trade mark, the Examiner accepted the respondent's explanation that it was unaware of the parking page and had tried to cancel it, but the disputed domain name was blocked due to the URS action. This explanation regarding the parking page was found by the Examiner to be plausible since the URS proceedings were commenced only nine days after the disputed domain name was registered.
    • For three of the URS cases, the Examiner found that despite the complainant holding registered trade mark rights that corresponded to the disputed domain names, as the mark was a generic word, the complainant had failed to establish that the generic word had acquired secondary meaning, i.e., that the trade mark was exclusively and most commonly associated with the complainant. Further, the disputed domain names resolved to parking pages that were not exclusively or strongly associated with the complainant or its trade mark, and there was no evidence to show that the respondent registered the domain name with the intent of taking advantage of the complainant's trade mark5.

What do these cases reveal?

What seems clear from these decisions is that a URS action may not be suitable in every circumstance. If a complaint requires more explanation then the 500 word limit will allow, or there is a genuinely contestable issue, then a URS complaint will likely be denied.

What was repeatedly emphasised in the majority of these unsuccessful URS cases was that URS complaints involve a higher burden of proof than UDRP actions, and are not intended for cases involving any arguable issues. For example, if the trade mark being relied upon is also a generic or dictionary term, then this raises a number of ancillary issues that the complainant needs to overcome in order to satisfy all three elements. In such circumstances, a UDRP action may be more appropriate. Unlike a URS complaint, a UDRP complaint has a 3,000 word limit, and complainants can request to file further supplemental submissions (although the granting of such a request is up to the discretion of the Panel); complainants would therefore be better able to fully develop and set out their factual and legal arguments in a UDRP complaint.

The URS cases decided so far show that the Examiners are still applying the same well established principles formulated by Panellists under the UDRP proceedings – none of the reasons provided by the Examiners for denying the URS complaints are novel or unusual. However, if the complainants in the above URS cases had filed a UDRP action instead of a URS complaint, there is a possibility that they may have been able to succeed.

Summary of the ADNDRC cases

Only three cases have so far been filed with the ADNDRC as at 13 June 20146 – two of which were handled by this firm. So far these cases have been uncontroversial.

All three cases were based on similar facts, i.e., the disputed domain names were identical to the complainants' registered trade marks (save for the domain extension) and also resolved to parking pages.

The Examiners in each of the cases found that the complainant had provided "clear and convincing evidence" to establish all the required elements. In particular, the Examiners relied on the following facts in reaching their decision:

  • The complainants all had numerous registered trade mark rights that were well-known, and which were incorporated in their entirety in the disputed domain names;
  • In two of the cases, the Examiners specifically noted that the complainants had also registered their trade marks with the Trademark Clearing House, and so the respondents must have received notice of the relevant complainant's trade mark rights prior to their registration of the disputed domain names; and
  • The respondents must have been aware of the complainants and their trade mark rights prior to registration of the disputed domain names, based on one or more of the above reasons. For one of the cases, the Examiner also noted that the complainants trade mark was a made up word having no common meaning in any language.

The Examiners found in two of the cases that due to the well-known nature of the complainants' trade marks, and the fact that the respondents would have been alerted to such rights since the complainant had registered its trade marks with the Trademark Clearing House, any "good faith use by the [respondent] is inconceivable"7 and there is "no other plausible explanation for taking a prominent name, incorporating it in a domain name...and using it in the manner described"8. As such, the Examiners held that the respondents had registered and were using the domain names in bad faith to take advantage of the complainants goodwill and creating a likelihood of confusion, for commercial gain.

In the other URS case, the Examiner found that the fact that the respondent registered three domain names on the same date, each incorporating a different registered trade mark of the complainant, showed a pattern of conduct aimed at preventing the complaint from reflecting its marks in corresponding domain names9.

URS or UDRP proceedings?

When deciding whether or not to bring URS or UDRP proceedings, the following questions should be considered:

  1. Is the complainant seeking a quick and cheap resolution, wishing simply to stop the infringing activities as soon as possible?
  2. Is the domain name an unimportant one, which the complainant does not want to use themselves?
  3. Does the complainant hold a registered word mark?
  4. Is the word mark relatively well-known?
  5. Is there a low risk of repeat infringement, i.e., is it unlikely that the domain name will be re-registered by an infringer?
  6. Does the domain name relate to a mark that the complainant only intends to use for a shortterm or temporary campaign, and which is not an essential trade mark for the complainant in the long term?
  7. Is the respondent obviously infringing the complainant's rights, e.g., is the respondent using the disputed domain name to sell competing products or counterfeit goods, etc?
  8. Does the respondent have no viable defence, e.g., it is not a reseller of the complainant, the complainant's mark is not a generic term, etc?

If any of the answers to the above questions are no, then UDRP proceedings may be preferred, in light of the higher burden of proof and the limited remedy (i.e., suspension of the domain name) involved in URS proceedings, and the 500 word limit for URS complainants.

For more details regarding the URS procedure, please refer to our article entitled "The URS – A Strong Alternative to UDRP Actions for New gTLDs?" 10.


1 See "The URS – A Strong Alternative to UDRP Actions for New gTLDs?" by Gabriela Kennedy and Karen H.F. Lee of Mayer Brown JSM: http://www.mayerbrown.com/The-URS--A-Strong-Alternative-to-UDRP-Actions-for-New-gTLDs-11-29-2013/

2 Wolfram Research, Inc. v. Andrew Davies et al, NAF Case No. FA1404001553139; and Aeropostale Procurement Company, Inc. v. Michael Kinsey, NAF Case No. FA1403001550933.

3 Aeropostale Procurement Company, Inc. v. Michael Kinsey, NAF Case No. FA1403001550933.

4 Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Lawrence Fain, NAF Case No. FA1402001545807.

5 Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., and Kyle Ramsey, NAF Case No. FA1403001546294; Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. v. Redwood Capital, NAF Case No. FA1403001547419; and Finn.co AS. North Sound Names et al, NAF Case No. FA1405001558494.

6 Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. Andreas Perschk, ADNDRC Case No. HKS-1400003; Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. Tian Shuping, ADNDRC Case No. HKS-1400002; and Michael Page Recruitment Group Limited v. Tassanee Atsawasakundee, KTI Recruitment Consultants Co. Ltd, ADNDRC Case No. HKS-1400001.

7 Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. Andreas Perschk, ADNDRC Case No. HKS-1400003.

8 Michael Page Recruitment Group Limited v. Tassanee Atsawasakundee, KTI Recruitment Consultants Co. Ltd, ADNDRC Case No. HKS-1400001.

9 Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. Tian Shuping, ADNDRC Case No. HKS-1400002.

10 www.mayerbrown.com/The-URS--A-Strong-Alternative-to-UDRP-Actions-for-New-gTLDs-11-29-2013

Originally published Second Quarter 2014

Visit us at www.mayerbrownjsm.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein. Please also read the JSM legal publications Disclaimer.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.