UDRP Perspectives All Topics

0.18 Redaction

Under par. 4(j) of the Policy all UDRP decisions shall be published in full, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision. Rule 16 (b) states that “Except if the Panel determines otherwise (see Paragraph 4(j) of the Policy), the Provider shall publish the full decision and the date of its implementation on a publicly accessible web site”. Redacted portions may include personal information or any other information.

For instance, Panels may redact Respondent’s name when there is evidence of identity theft. Publication of Respondent’s name in such cases may adversely affect her/his rights and redaction is justified.  This can be done by the Panel at its own initiative when facts and evidence indicate identity theft or at the Respondent’s request.  Other information can be redacted in other exceptional circumstances such as Complainant’s name, domain names and names of any individuals.  At the same time Panels should carefully consider requests for redaction and keep in mind that the Policy allows this in “exceptional” cases only.

Additional Information

Relevant Decisions

Talan Corporate and Talan SAS v. Name Redacted, WIPO D2025-1038 <talan-us. com>, 3-Member, Transfer

The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this Decision.

BFORBANK v. redacted, CAC-UDRP-106429 (2024), <BFORBK-ONLINE.COM>, Transfer

In light of the potential identity theft, in line with the approach taken by other panels in similar cases (see for example WIPO Case No. D2017-1520), the Panel requests that the Respondent’s name is redacted from the public version of this Decision. Indeed, the publication of the third party’s name in these circumstances might adversely affect him.

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Richard Blair, WIPO D2022-1570 <lambo.com>, 3-member, Denied with dissenting opinion

It is for a respondent to show why this is necessary and why it has an exceptional case that would justify such a redaction. The Respondent has not put forward argument or evidence to support his request, nor does the Panel consider this case to be exceptional. The unanimous view of the Panel therefore, is to decline to direct that the Respondent’s name be redacted from this Decision.

Software in the Public Interest, Inc., The Debian Project, and Debian.ch v. IT Manager, Free Software Contributors Association, WIPO D2022-1524 <debian.community>, 3-member, Transfer

The Respondent requests that this Decision redact all names and identifying details and refer to persons by their roles.

Paragraph 4(j) of the Policy provides that all decisions under the Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when a panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision. In the present case, the Panel sees no exceptional circumstances, such as identity theft, that would justify redacting portions of this Decision. Nevertheless, the Panel notes that the former Debian developer to whom both Parties refer in their submissions (whether by name, photograph, former role, or otherwise) is not identified as a Party in the amended Complaint. The Panel sees no compelling reason to record the name of that person or other individuals in the Decision in order to reach its conclusions under the Policy.

[Name Redacted] v. ludashi us / jack zhang, Forum FA2208002009845 <[redacted].com>, Transfer

Complainant requests that her identity, including the Domain Name, be redacted from this decision or that the decision be privately archived, stating: “My privacy is of grave concern, and I do not want my name to hold any association with the explicit obscene content on the website in question, nor any association with the respondent…” The Panel has been unable to find a case in which a complainant’s name has been redacted from a UDRP decision. The only published decisions the Panel has found in which the name of a party has been redacted are decisions in which the domain name was registered in the name of a victim of identity theft, in which case it would be grossly unfair for the respondent to be publicly accused or found guilty of cybersquatting. In the present case this decision vindicates Complainant from any suggestion that she has promoted pornography.

However, having regard to Complainant’s legitimate concerns as to her privacy and safety, the Panel determines that this is an exceptional case in which it is appropriate that the name of Complainant, her trademark and the Domain Name, which both contain her name, should be redacted from the published decision.

Mountain Top (Denmark) ApS v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0133416460 / Name Redacted, Mountaintop Idea Studio, WIPO D2020-1577 <mountaintop.com>, 3-member, Denied, RDNH

The Respondents have not explicitly requested that the Panel redact the Respondent Individual’s name, however have made submissions that the Respondent Individual will suffer loss by his name being published. Here, the Panel agrees with the Respondents that many of the Complainant’s allegations are demonstrably false and that the Respondents will be harmed by them if the Respondent Individual’s name is included in this Decision.

[Seven Network (Operations) Limited v. Knock Knock WHOIS Not There, LLC / Name Redacted], WIPO D2017-0498 <name redacted-d2017-0498.com>, Transfer

Given the exceptional circumstances of the existence and the effect of the Website Suppression Order, pursuant to paragraph 4(j) of the Policy and paragraph 16(b) of the Rules the Panel has resolved: (i) to issue this Decision with the disputed domain name, the name of the second-named Respondent and certain other potentially identifying information redacted from it; (ii) to list the disputed domain name and the name of the second-named Respondent in the Annex to this Decision; (iii) to direct the Center to not publish the Annex to this Decision; and (iv) to direct the Center to provide to the Registrar, solely for the purpose of implementing this Decision, the Annex to this Decision.

Digest Commentary