0.6 Informal Responses
An informal response is a response that lacks the certification provided in Rule 5c)(viii).
Some UDPR Panels ignore informal or “deficient response” and do not consider it at all due to lack of certification, see e.g. Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Dimar Manigao, Forum FA2308002057390 (etraderwave.com): “The Panel, at its discretion, may choose whether to accept and consider this Response. See Sears Brands, LLC v. Airhart, FA 1350469 (Forum Dec. 2, 2010) (electing to not accept and not consider the response as the response was not in compliance with ICANN Rule 5). The Panel finds that Respondent’s communication to Complainant is not a legitimate Response in compliance with ICANN Rule 5, and thus it decides not to consider Respondent’s communication to Complainant”.
However, one should take into account that unrepresented respondents often lack knowledge about the procedure and that “in all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case” (Rule 10 (b)).
Based on this, informal responses may be considered by Panels for the purpose of serving justice and procedural fairness. UDRP Panels may take note of the lack of Respondent’s certification. An informal response may assist a Respondent if it is supported by other evidence and information available in a particular dispute and if it provides a convincing explanation of Respondent’s story.
The quality and substance of an informal response play a significant role.
Informal response by one respondent in cases of multiple respondents may also indicate that consolidation is not appropriate.
Additional Information
Relevant Decisions
Paladin Labs, Inc. v. Giovanni Cagnoli, PALADIN PHARMA SPA, WIPO D2024-1044 <paladinpharma.com>, Denied
According to the informal communications from a representative of the Respondent, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for use in connection with its export business. Given the nature of the business described on the website at “www.paladinpharma.it”, this strikes the Panel as reasonably plausible.
Bal du Moulin Rouge v. David Millar, WIPO D2024-0877 <katiesmoulinrouge.com>, Transfer
The Panel recognizes that Respondent has put nothing forward and no evidence to support (neither by means of a formal response nor in its informal email correspondence with the Center) why it needed to rely on Complainant’s famous MOULIN ROUGE trademark as part of the disputed domain name…
Fenix International Limited v. Thanawat boonchai, WIPO D2024-0340<onlyfanstarth.com>, Transfer
Indeed, the Respondent’s informal response appears to confirm Respondent’s lack of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Zetland Capital v. Steve King, WIPO D2024-0264 <zetland.info>, Denied
The Respondent’s informal response aligns with the geographic meaning and use of “Zetland”.
Wanavit Manufacturing Co., Ltd v. Phan Van Thong, WIPO D2023-3198 <hatarico.com>, Denied
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions… The Respondent sent an email to the Center stating that the Respondent was not good at English and had to rely on Google translate and did not understand why there was a domain name dispute. The Respondent stated that HATARI was its trademark and attached a copy of a Viet Nam trademark certificate with registration number 394656, although it is not apparent what mark it relates to.
In order to consider all the circumstances of the case, the Panel has decided to admit the Respondent’s email and attachment in evidence.
Goldenvoice, LLC v. Rhonna Leigh Mac Knight / OmniCorps, Forum FA2311002072607 <ingoldenvoice.com>, et, Denied
Respondent’s informal Response is deficient as it was unsigned and did not certify, as required by Rule 5(c)(vii), “that the Response was complete and accurate.” However, the Panel considers that, in the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to take into account Respondent’s informal Response as set out below.
GLOCK, Inc. v. Andrew Turigel / Karim Nasereddin / Hamza Kh / Aymane Bokhamy / griffin clarke / My Store / water glock / WaterGlock / Talha Boga / SplashyGlock / Benjamin martin / Glock Splash / Lennart van Wimersma Greidanus / Glock Water Gun / David Kincaid / AquaGlock / tajai cilien / Super Soaked Glock / Marius, Forum FA2306002047074 <hydroglock.com>, et., Transfer in part and denied in part
Informal responses from the registrants of <glockwatergun.com> and <water-glock.com> were also received… The Panel finds that Complainant has not sufficiently presented evidence demonstrating that the domain names are controlled by related entities… Moreover, in the course of the proceedings Forum has received communications in respect of the Complaint from four different entities; one formal response, two informal responses and one general query. This further indicates that the domain names the subject of the Complaint are not under common control.
Melinda French Gates v. John Clendenon, Forum FA2207002003541 <melindagates.com>, 3-member, Denied
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that it is in the interests of justice that Respondent’s Response be considered for all appropriate purposes in coming to a decision in this proceeding. See, for example, Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. LaFond, FA 1362225 (Forum January 7, 2011) (deciding that, while a response was deficient, “the Panel has nonetheless decided to consider the deficient Response.”).
Altron Limited, Altron TMT Limited v. ALTRON LIMITED DOOEL export- import Skopje, WIPO D2022-4163 <altron.ltd>, Denied
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
However, the Panel notes that all three versions are submitted with a certification followed by the mark of an anonymous “Volunteer”, whereas paragraph 5(c)(viii) of the Rules requires the certification of the Response to be followed by the signature of the Respondent or its authorized representative. In view of this circumstance the Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to submit a formal Response in accordance with the Rules. Nevertheless, in accordance with its powers under paragraph 10(a) of the Rules, the Panel will consider the merits of the timely original Response de bene esse.
Rothschild & Co Continuation Holdings AG v. Gary Williams / Edmundson Carlyle & Calyton, Forum FA2206002001953 <rothchildcapital.com>, Transfer
Given this fact, in the absence of more detailed information from Respondent (which the Respondent has chosen not to provide, notwithstanding that it filed an informal response to the Complaint) the Panel cannot conclude from the Respondent’s Website alone that Respondent is operating a legitimate business (as opposed to creating a website for fraudulent purposes), let alone made a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial use of the Domain Name.
Arm Limited v. Keith Wilkes, Get Steamed, WIPO D2021-0974 <arm.global>, Transfer
The Respondent submitted no formal Response, but as has already been recorded in the Procedural History section of this decision, sent an email to the Center on September 28, 2021. However, this email is problematic on a number of levels and the Panel is not prepared to give any evidential weight to the claims contained therein.