One of the most common procedural questions in UDRP proceedings is whether a dispute should be decided by a single-member or a three-member panel. At first glance, the answer may appear obvious: if more subjects are involved, the chances of a well-reasoned and balanced decision should theoretically increase.
In practice, however, the issue is far less straightforward.
While a three-member panel may offer certain strategic advantages in complex disputes, it also significantly increases the costs of the proceeding and does not necessarily improve the chances of success.
How the Appointment Works?
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) make clear that both the complainant and the respondent may request that the dispute be decided by a three-member panel.
The procedure is quite simple: (i) express your intention; (ii) provide the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the panelists; (iii) pay the additional fees (4,000 USD for the complainant instead of 1,500 USD, and 2,000 USD for the respondent).
Under Paragraph 6(e) of the Rules, the Provider shall endeavor to appoint one Panelist from the list of candidates provided by each of the Complainant and the Respondent.
In practice, the provider attempts to take the parties’ preferences into account, while maintaining procedural neutrality and ensuring the efficient administration of the case.
However, the parties do not directly control the final composition of the panel.
Although each side may nominate preferred candidates, the provider ultimately retains significant discretion in the appointment process: in the event the Provider is unable within five (5) calendar days to secure the appointment of a Panelist on its customary terms from either Party’s list of candidates, the Provider shall make that appointment from its list of panelists.
The third Panelist shall be appointed by the Provider from a list of five candidates submitted by the Provider to the Parties, the Provider’s selection from among the five being made in a manner that reasonably balances the preferences of both Parties, as they may specify to the Provider within five (5) calendar days of the Provider’s submission of the five-candidate list to the Parties (Paragraph 6(e) of the Rules).
As a result, selecting a three-member panel should not be viewed as an opportunity to “build” a favorable tribunal. The UDRP framework is specifically designed to preserve a balance between the parties and to minimize the risk of procedural manipulation.
Does a Three-Member Panel Affect the Outcome?
Under Paragraph 15(c) of the Rules, in the case of a three-member Panel, the Panel’s decision shall be made by a majority.
Prima facie, this may appear advantageous to the respondents, as persuading three experienced panelists to grant the requested remedies may seem more difficult than convincing a single one.
Although it is not that clear. UDRP proceedings are generally standardized and relatively predictable; regardless of whether the dispute is heard by one or three panel members, the complainant must still establish all three elements under the Policy. At the same time, the respondent should provide a credible and well-supported response capable of rebutting the complainant’s allegations.
For that reason, the strength of the parties’ submissions usually plays a significantly greater role than the number of panelists involved.
Moreover, a three-member panel does not necessarily increase predictability. While it may reduce the likelihood of an outlier decision by introducing collective deliberation, differing approaches among panel members may also lead to more nuanced or less predictable reasoning in borderline cases.
In practice, panel decisions are also subject to internal review and administrative oversight; as a result, where the records clearly support or undermine a complaint, such issues are likely to be highlighted.
These considerations, combined with the substantial additional costs associated with three-member panel, explain why most UDRP disputes continue to be decided by a single panelist.
When a Three-Member Panel May Be Worth Considering?
There are numerous situations in which requesting a three-member panel may be justified.
It is particularly true in disputes involving legally or factually complex issues, including:
-
allegations of reverse domain name hijacking;
-
disputes involving unregistered or common law trademark rights;
-
questions concerning fair use or legitimate noncommercial use;
-
cases involving a large number of disputed domain names; etc.
In such cases, collective deliberation may provide a more balanced assessment of the evidence and reduce the likelihood of oversimplified conclusions.
A three-member panel may also be appropriate where the dispute raises novel legal issues or where the potential commercial consequences of the decision are particularly significant for either party.
Besides, in the majority of standard cybersquatting disputes, a single-member panel is often entirely sufficient. Where the factual background is relatively clear and the evidence is properly prepared, appointing additional panel members may simply increase the cost of the proceeding without creating a meaningful competitive advantage.
Ultimately, the decision whether to proceed before a single-member or three-member panel should be based on the complexity of the dispute, the parties’ procedural objectives, and the overall litigation strategy rather than on the assumption that “more panelists” automatically means a better outcome.
ClaimOn assists with all aspects of UDRP proceedings, including case assessment, panel selection, preparation of submissions, and representation throughout domain name disputes. Our team works closely with clients to develop practical and effective solutions tailored to the specific circumstances of each case.
