The International Trademark Association (INTA) issued what it called a 6 month Bulletin on the results of cases filed under the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure.
INTA says that a total of 92 URS cases have been filed to date
88 with the National Arbitration Forum in the United States (NAF) and four with the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) in Hong Kong.
Suspensions have been issued in 71 cases (including one affirmed on appeal, as noted below), versus nine instances where relief was denied.
As of this writing, 12 cases remain pending.
The procedure started being used by the .pw ccTLD so not all cases involve new gTLD’s
The INTA concludes that:
The nature of the URS—intended as an efficient, low-cost dispute mechanism for obvious cases of cybersquatting—may mean that it is not always the best option for brand owners.
Where the trademark at issue is weak or arbitrary (i.e., it also serves as a generic term), brand owners should pursue a URS action only where the actual content on the subject website makes it apparent that the registrant intends to confuse users. Otherwise, certain URS panels appear to be reluctant to suspend domain names in the face of plausible good faith, even if uncorroborated by concrete evidence. This is exacerbated by the constraints of the URS complaint forms, which make it difficult for complainants to provide more than a brief, cursory explanation as to why they believe the domain name is infringing.
Thus, the URS is shaping up to be a useful complement to the UDRP, as opposed to a complete alternative, most appropriate when a brand owner wishes to promptly suspend an egregious website (with blatant infringement, phishing or other abuse) yet does not wish to assume the added cost necessary to acquire the domain name.
Brand owners with particularly famous or fanciful marks may be able to take advantage of the URS more easily, yet they should still be mindful that the term after the dot will likely be considered in a potential fair use assessment.”