There is now a series of decisions where a case has gone forward in the normal manner, but when the order is made and the decision posted on the provider’s website as the Rules provide, the name of the Respondent has been redacted or deleted. Clearly this is done for good reason and to protect the named Respondent from being identified and named in public as a cybersquatter.
One recent such case is PPG Industries Ohio, Inc. v. Name Redacted , WIPO Case No. D2018-0334. In that case the Panel, in the following footnote explained what it was doing and why:
“Respondent appears to have used the name and contact details of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted Respondent’s name from this Decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See
Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.”
This approach seems eminently reasonable where a named Respondent has been dragged into a proceeding through no doing of his or her own and usually as part of a fraud being perpetrated on others but in which the named Respondent is not involved. Naturally, the redacted party would not want to be named and shamed when their name appeared on the provider’s website in the decision.
Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788, cited above, was a similar situation, described as the “hijacking” of the unnamed Respondent’s hosting account to enable the disputed domain name to be registered. The Panel included the following in its decision, clearly similar to the footnote in PPG Industries Ohio, Inc. v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2018-0334:
“The Panel has decided that no purpose is to be served by including the name of the referenced individual co- Respondent in this decision, and has therefore redacted his name from the caption and body of this decision. The Panel has, however, attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name that includes the name of the referenced individual co-Respondent, and has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding. However, the Panel has further directed the Center, pursuant to paragraph 4(j) of the Policy and paragraph 16(b) of the Rules, that Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published based on exceptional circumstances.”
Comentarios