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

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”

Related Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions