I. INTRODUCTION

II. INTERPRETATION OF THE gTLD-MoU POLICY

III. DEFINITIONS

IV. CHALLENGES

A. Filing of a Request for Challenge

(a) Forms of Relief
(b) Assertion of an Intellectual Property Right in the Request
(c) Request for Provisional Suspension of the Domain Name
(d) Provisional Exclusion of the Domain Name

B. Determinations Which May Be Made in the Context of a Challenge

C. Factors to Be Considered in Making Determinations

(a) First-Come First-Served Principle
(b) The Intellectual Property Right of the Challenger
 
      (i)  Evidence of the Existence of an Intellectual Property Right Which May
            Be a Basis for a Challenge
     (ii)  Goods or Services
     (iii) Extent of Rights
     (iv) Uniqueness

(c) Rights and Interests of the Domain Name Holder
(d) Bad Faith, Including Trafficking

     (i)  Trafficking
    (ii)   Bad Faith Registration of the Domain Name
    (iii)  Bad Faith Assertion of an Intellectual Property Right
    (iv)  Multiple Challenges

(e) Similarity of the Second-Level Domain Name and the Alphanumeric String That is the
Subject of the Intellectual Property Right
(f) Use Being Made of the Domain Name
(g) Potential Impact on the Domain Name Holder and the Challenger
(h) Third Party Rights

V. PETITIONS

A. Petition for Pro-active Exclusion

(a) Filing of a Petition for Pro-Active Exclusion
(b) Assertion of an Intellectual Property Right in the Petition
(c) Provisional Exclusion
(d) Submission of Search Report
(e) Determinations

B. Petition for Exception from Exclusion

(a) Filing of a Petition for Exception from Exclusion
(b) Determinations

C. Petition for Modification or Cancellation of an Exclusion

(a) Filing of a Petition for Modification or Cancellation of an Exclusion
(b) Determinations

D. Bad Faith

VI. GENERAL EXCLUSIONS

A. Request for General Exclusion

B. Submission of Search Report

C. Determinations Which May Be Made in the Context of a Request for
General Exclusion

D. Factors to Be Considered in Making Determinations

(a) Extent and Uniqueness of Intellectual Property Rights
(b) Recognition
(c) Interests of Users of the Internet

VII. APPEALS

VIII. PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ACP DETERMINATIONS

[RESERVED: Depending on the final approach adopted for these Substantive Guidelines, the gTLD-MoU policy (Section 2(f)) may have to be amended. Therefore, these two introductory sections will be revisited after the initial comment period on the substantive portion of the Guidelines is completed.]

1. In addition to the definitions in Article 1 of the CORE-MoU, the following definitions apply to these Guidelines:

"Second-level domain name" does not include the top level domain name;

"Domain name" means the second level domain name, plus the top level domain name, separated by ".";

"ACP" means an Administrative Challenge Panel as referred to in Article 8 of the CORE-MoU;

"Challenger" means the party initiating a challenge of a second-level domain name that has been registered in a CORE gTLD;

"Domain name holder" means the holder of the domain name against which a challenge is initiated;

"Party" means the Challenger or the domain name holder, and does not include a petitioner or any other person that the ACP has decided may participate in the procedures;

"Petitioner" means the party initiating a petition before an ACP;

"Participant" means any person, other than a party, that the ACP has decided may participate in challenge or petition procedures;

"WIPO" means the World Intellectual Property Organization;

"WIPO Center" means the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center;

Words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.

A. Filing of a Request for Challenge

(a) Forms of Relief

2. Any person may file a request for challenge under the WIPO Rules for Administrative Challenge Panel Procedures Concerning Internet Domain Names (WIPO ACP Rules), as established by the WIPO Center, asking for one or more of the following forms of relief:

(i)  Exclusion: that a second-level domain name which has been registered in a particular gTLD, or in more than one gTLD by the same person, be excluded (that is, that the registration be canceled and that the second-level domain name may not be registered in the future by any person in the gTLD(s) mentioned in the request);

(ii) Transfer: that a second-level domain name which has been registered in a particular gTLD, or in more than one gTLD by the same person, be transferred to the challenger in lieu of being excluded (that is, that the domain name be treated as if it had been registered by the challenger). Unless the context indicates otherwise, references in these Guidelines to exclusion shall also apply to transfer;

(iii) General Exclusion (see Section VI, below): that the second-level domain name also be excluded from the gTLDs in which the second-level domain name has not yet been registered (that is, that the second-level domain name may not be registered in the future by any person in any gTLD).

(b) Assertion of an Intellectual Property Right in the Request

3. Each person who files a request under sub-section (a) above must include in that request an assertion of a demonstrable intellectual property right, having effect in at least one country in which the challenger either resides, has an effective business establishment, or carries on non-trivial business activities. The assertion must include the name of the country in or for which the right was granted, the date on which the right was granted, the administrative agency which granted the right, and the registration, docket or other number corresponding to the demonstrable evidence on which the assertion of the right is based. Where the assertion relates to intellectual property rights in more than one country, it must include those data for each of those countries. Throughout these Guidelines, "intellectual property right" refers only to a right that has already been granted, and has not expired or been otherwise invalidated.

(c) Request for Provisional Suspension of the Domain Name

4. If a request for challenge is lodged within 30 days of the date on which the information concerning the registration of the domain name became publicly available, and that request for challenge contains a request for provisional suspension of the domain name and a bond is posted, the request for provisional suspension shall be immediately referred to an emergency ACP. The emergency ACP shall determine, within 48 hours, whether use of the domain name by the registrant should be suspended for the pendency of the challenge procedure.

5. In making its determination, the emergency ACP shall consider, inter alia, the relative harm that would be suffered by the domain name holder and the challenger, for example, whether the domain name holder has its own intellectual property rights in the domain name, whether the domain name holder has begun significant good faith commercial or other activities using the domain name, and whether the challenger has adequately asserted intellectual property rights upon which a challenge may be based.

(d) Provisional Exclusion of the Domain Name

6. Where a request for general exclusion is lodged in the context of a challenge, registration of the second-level domain name shall be provisionally excluded in all of the gTLDs in which the second-level domain name has not yet been registered. The exclusion shall remain in effect during the pendency of the challenge procedure.

B. Determinations Which May Be Made in the Context of a Challenge

7. ACPs may make the following determinations in the context of a challenge:

(a) If requested by the challenger in the request for challenge, a determination that the domain name shall be excluded. This means that the registration of the domain name held by the domain name holder will be canceled, and the domain name will not be available for registration or use by any person unless and until a further determination is made by an ACP;

(b) If requested by the challenger in the request for challenge, a determination that the domain name shall be transferred to the challenger. This means that the challenger can use or further transfer the domain name, and that it must maintain the domain name by renewal, etc.;

(c) If requested by the challenger in the request for challenge, a general exclusion as described in Section VI. There shall be a publication period for comment before such a determination is made;

(d) Upon request of either party at any time, or upon the suggestion of the ACP itself, and subject to the agreement of both parties, modification of the second-level domain name held by the domain name holder, to avoid conflict with the rights of the challenger;

(e) A determination that a sufficient showing has not been made to justify exclusion or transfer of the domain name;

(f) A determination that the conflict is not appropriate for ACP procedures. Such a determination could be made, for example, in a proceeding which involves conflicting rights that are relatively evenly balanced. In such a proceeding, an ACP may recommend that the dispute be submitted to another form of dispute resolution, including but not limited to mediation and arbitration, or to litigation before a national or regional court.

8. ACPs shall not award monetary damages, it being understood that they may award the costs of the challenge procedure, and may make appropriate determinations with respect to any bond that has been posted, including forfeiture of the bond.

C. Factors to Be Considered in Making Determinations

9. ACPs shall make their determinations based on a balancing of all circumstances of the case, including, in particular, the following considerations:

(a) First-Come First-Served Principle

10. The first-come first-served principle is the basic rule for allocation of domain names in the gTLDs. Cancellation of a domain name because of conflict with an intellectual property right is an exception to that basic principle.

11. The ACP shall take into consideration the first-come first-served principle, among other considerations, in particular, where the ACP finds that the challenger and the domain name holder both have rights in the domain name.

(b) The Intellectual Property Right of the Challenger

12. A challenge before an ACP must be based on an intellectual property right held by the challenger, which has already been granted and has not expired or been otherwise invalidated; which has effect in at least one country in which the challenger either resides, has an effective business establishment, or carries on non-trivial business activities; and which is demonstrable, in that its existence can be established by the submission of documentary evidence and is not based merely on circumstantial evidence such as use in commerce, survey evidence or evidence of market presence and advertising.

            (i) Evidence of the Existence of an Intellectual Property Right Which May Be a Basis
for a Challenge

13. For the purposes of these Guidelines, the following may, inter alia, be considered to be capable of establishing the existence of an intellectual property right:

-  Intellectual property registration certificate granted by a national or regional
   (intergovernmental) authority;
-  Intellectual property search report showing existence of the intellectual property right, subject
   to rebuttal as to the reliability of the source of the report;
-  Court or other authoritative government decisions showing the existence of the
   intellectual property right;
-  Declarations or attestations of relevant government authorities;
-  Certificate of filing of a pending application for an intellectual property right which has
   been filed in good faith by the challenger (good faith to be measured, in particular, by the date
   of the application, and the existence of serious and substantial business plans in conjunction
   with which the application has been filed);
- Other tangible evidence of the existence of the intellectual property right.

14. For the purposes of these Guidelines, evidence that an alphanumeric string has been the subject of a communication under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, or under the corresponding provision of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), shall have the same effect as if evidence of an intellectual property right in such alphanumeric string had been furnished.

15. Rights which may not be demonstrable for the purposes of these Guidelines could be common-law rights or rights resulting from acts of unfair competition, etc., which have not been established by authoritative government sources.

            (ii) Goods or Services

16. The ACP shall consider the goods or services in respect of which the intellectual property right exists, relative to the goods or services, if any, in connection with which the domain name is used.

            (iii) Extent of Rights

17. The ACP shall consider the extent of the challenger's intellectual property rights, for example, whether the challenger has long-established or geographically widespread intellectual property rights and/or market presence related to the alphanumeric string that is the subject of the intellectual property right. In that context, the ACP may consider, taking into account the relevant field of technology or commerce, whether the challenger's intellectual property rights have been held for a significant number of years, or whether the challenger holds the intellectual property rights in respect of the same or similar goods or services with effect for a significant number of countries. Other evidence of long established or geographically widespread intellectual property rights and/or market presence may also be considered.

18. The ACP shall also consider, among other factors, whether the intellectual property rights of the challenger are based only on applications which were filed, or on use which took place, after the date on which the domain name holder commenced good faith use of the domain name on the Internet.

            (iv) Uniqueness

19. The ACP shall consider the uniqueness of the alphanumeric string that is the subject of the intellectual property right, including, inter alia, whether the alphanumeric string is a descriptive term, whether it is a generic term outside of the field of commerce to which the intellectual property right pertains, whether other identical or similar second-level domain names are held by third parties in any other top-level domains, and whether intellectual property rights in the same subject matter are held by third parties.

(c) Rights and Interests of the Domain Name Holder

20. The ACP shall consider the rights and interests of the domain name holder in the alphanumeric string that corresponds to the domain name, and the domain name holder's rights and interests in continued use of the domain name on the Internet, including, inter alia, the following factors:

-  Relevant intellectual property rights held by the domain name holder in the
   alphanumeric string corresponding to the second-level domain name;
-  Good faith use of the domain name by the domain name holder on the
   Internet for less than two years of continuous use;
-  Evidence of widespread public recognition of the domain name holder's use
   of the domain name on the Internet;
-  Prior rights concerning the alphanumeric string corresponding to the
   second-level domain name;
-  Use of the domain name holder's personal name or nickname as a second-level
   domain name in a gTLD which is dedicated to personal names;
-  A pending application for an intellectual property right which has been filed
   in good faith by the domain name holder (good faith to be measured, in particular, by the
   date of the application, and the existence of serious and substantial business plans in
   conjunction with which the application has been filed);
-  Any other right to use the alphanumeric string corresponding to the second-level domain name.

21. A finding by the ACP that the domain name has been used by the domain name holder continuously and in good faith on the Internet for two years prior to the date of lodging of the challenge shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the domain name holder is entitled to continue that use of the domain name.

(d) Bad Faith, Including Trafficking

22. The ACP shall consider whether a party, or a participant, has acted in bad faith.

23. Where the ACP finds that there has been bad faith on the part of one of the parties, that fact alone may be sufficient for the ACP to make a determination against that party. The party which has been determined to have acted in bad faith may be required to bear all costs of the challenge, and may be precluded from filing any requests for challenge or petitions before ACPs in the future with respect to any domain names. If both parties are found to have acted in bad faith, the ACP shall exercise its judgment, in light of all of the circumstances, in making a determination.

24. Where a participant is found by the ACP to have participated in the procedures in bad faith, the ACP shall disregard the contribution of the participant.

25. The following circumstances, in particular, may be considered by the ACP as indications of bad faith:

                (i) Trafficking

26. Trafficking is defined as the registration of a domain name by a person that has no rights in the alphanumeric string corresponding to the second-level domain name, for the purpose of reselling the domain name to another person that has such rights. The following factors shall be considered by the ACP as strong indications of trafficking:

                 (i) Where the holder of the domain name had, prior to the date of the lodging of the
      challenge, made a spontaneous offer to sell or rent the domain name, either to the challenger in       particular or to the public at large;

                (ii) Where the holder of the domain name is also the holder of registrations, in any other       top-level domains, of second-level domain names which are identical or closely similar to       alphanumeric strings which are the subject of intellectual property rights of others, and in which the       domain name holder has no rights.

27. The ACP may also consider other evidence of trafficking.

               (ii) Bad Faith Registration of the Domain Name

28. The ACP shall consider whether the domain name holder engaged in bad faith registration of the domain name. An example of a circumstance in which a domain name has been registered in bad faith could be where a party registers a domain name incorporating a competitor's trademark or trade name for the purpose of disrupting that competitor's business activities.

              (iii) Bad Faith Assertion of an Intellectual Property Right

29. The ACP shall consider whether either party has engaged in activity which amounts to bad faith assertion of an intellectual property right. Examples of circumstances which could amount to bad faith assertion of an intellectual property right include, inter alia, the following:

- Where the ACP finds that the assertion of an intellectual property right in the request for challenge was willfully false with intent to deceive. Where the domain name had been provisionally suspended, the challenger shall forfeit the bond (see Section IV.A(c)(4), above) in its entirety, unless the ACP finds that there are special circumstances that warrant otherwise;

- Where the ACP finds that the challenge, while based on a bona fide assertion of an intellectual property right, has been brought for the sole purpose of appropriating a domain name which has been used by the domain name holder in good faith on the Internet, for example to coerce the domain name holder to give up the domain name which it would otherwise be entitled to continue using;

- Where the ACP finds that the intellectual property right held by the challenger had been obtained for the sole purpose of challenging the domain name in question, with the intent of disrupting the domain name holder's activities on the Internet, for example, where the challenger does not use the subject matter of the intellectual property right with respect to the goods or services for which it was granted;

- Where the ACP finds that an intellectual property right held by the domain name holder had been obtained in bad faith for the sole purpose of maintaining the domain name, for example, where the domain name holder does not use or intend either to use the domain name, or to exercise the intellectual property right, with respect to the goods or services for which the intellectual property right was granted, or where the domain name holder has obtained the intellectual property right merely to further activities which would otherwise be considered as trafficking in the domain name.

              (iv) Multiple Challenges

30. The filing of multiple challenges concerning the same second-level domain name in the same gTLD may, under appropriate circumstances, be considered an indication of bad faith, for example, where the ACP finds that the challenger had lodged a previous unsuccessful challenge concerning the same domain name, and the domain name holder has not in the interim changed the use of the domain name on the Internet from a use which did not relate to the goods or services for which the challenger's intellectual property right had been granted, to a use which did so relate.

     (e) Similarity of the Second-Level Domain Name and the Alphanumeric String That is the Subject of the Intellectual Property Right

31. The ACP shall consider whether the second-level domain name is identical to the alphanumeric string that is the subject of the challenger's intellectual property right, or is so closely similar to the alphanumeric string that its use is likely to lead to the erroneous conclusion of a connection to or approval by the challenger, or its use is likely to unfairly weaken or damage the rights or interests of the challenger.

32. The following factors, if they exist, shall be taken into account:

Identity. Whether the second-level domain name and the alphanumeric string are made up of the same alphanumeric characters and punctuation in the identical order. The term "punctuation" includes, without limitation, hyphens, underlinings, periods, capitalization, diacritic (accent) marks, commas, colons, periods, and like symbology. "Identical" in this context is intended to mean identical character by character, such that another second-level domain name would not be allotted in the same top level domain under the first come first served rule.

Changes of punctuation. Whether the second-level domain name (or the second-level domain name plus the top level domain name) and the alphanumeric string would be made up of the identical alphanumeric characters in the identical order if some or all punctuation marks were ignored. For example, "famoustrademark" and "famous-trademark," "famoustrademark" and "famoustrade.mark," etc.

Minor changes. Whether the second-level domain name and the alphanumeric string are essentially made up of the same alphanumeric characters in the same order, but differ only by a minor change or minor changes of spelling (misspelling or homonyms), or similar character replacement. For example, obvious misspellings ("famustrademark"), homonyms ("famoustraidmark", if "traid" were a word), replacement of letters by similar numerals ("fam0ustrademark"), etc.

Translations. Whether the second-level domain name is a translation of the alphanumeric string.

Clearly misleading . Whether the second-level domain name and the alphanumeric string are essentially made up of the same alphanumeric characters in the same order, but differ only in ways that would be clearly misleading to a user of the Internet. For example, modified versions such as "famousmark.firm" and "markfamous.firm", phonetic variations such as "foryou.firm" and "4u.firm", etc.

(f) Use Being Made of the Domain Name

33. The ACP shall consider the use that is being made of the domain name on the Internet, including, inter alia, the following factors:

- The contents of the web page associated with the domain name, in particular, the goods or services, if any, in connection with which the second-level domain name is used;

- Whether the use of the domain name is commercial or non commercial, whether such use relates to public service activities, etc.;

- The nature of the gTLD in which the domain name is registered; in particular, whether the gTLD carries a special meaning;

- Any abandonment or extended non-use of the domain name by the domain name holder.

(g) Potential Impact on the Domain Name Holder and the Challenger

34. The ACP shall consider the impact of the use of the domain name by the domain name holder on the challenger's business, on the challenger's visibility on the Internet, and on the customers of the challenger. It shall also consider the impact that exclusion or transfer of the domain name would have on the domain name holder's business, on the domain name holder's visibility on the Internet, and on the customers of the domain name holder.

(h) Third Party Rights

35. The ACP shall consider the rights and interest of third parties, where appropriate. In particular, the rights and interests of any participant in the ACP procedures shall be considered.

A. Petition for Pro-active Exclusion

(a) Filing of a Petition for Pro-Active Exclusion

36. Any person may file a petition for pro-active exclusion of a domain name from any gTLD in which the second-level domain name has not yet been registered; that is, it may request an exclusion before a third party registers the domain name.

37. The petition may also include a request for a general exclusion (see Section IV.A(a)(iii), above, and Section VI, below).

(b) Assertion of an Intellectual Property Right in the Petition

38. Each person who files a petition for pro-active exclusion must include in the petition an assertion of a demonstrable intellectual property right which conforms to the requirements as stated for challenges in Section IV.C(b) and (b)(i), above. The assertion must include the name of the country in or for which the right was granted, the date on which the right was granted, the administrative agency which granted the right, and the registration, docket or other number corresponding to the evidence on which the assertion of the right is based. Where the assertion relates to intellectual property rights in more than one country, it must include those data for each of those countries.

39. Where the assertion in the petition is found by the ACP to have been willfully false with intent to deceive, the petition shall be denied, the challenger may be assessed any costs of other parties, and the challenger may be precluded from filing any requests for challenge or petitions before ACPs in the future with respect to any domain names.

(c) Provisional Exclusion

40. Where a pro-active petition for exclusion is filed, registration of the second-level domain name shall be provisionally excluded in all of the gTLDs named in the petition. The exclusion shall remain in effect during the pendency of the consideration of the petition.

(d) Submission of Search Report

41. Each person who files a petition for pro-active exclusion must submit to the ACP, to aid it in making its determination, a recent world-wide search report from a bona fide search firm, showing, in particular, the extent to which the alphanumeric string that is the subject of his intellectual property right is also the subject of intellectual property rights held by others.

(e) Determinations

42. The ACP shall consider a petition for a pro-active exclusion utilizing the same criteria and standards as would be used in a challenge. For the purposes of the petition procedures, the petitioner shall be considered in the place of a challenger, and any participant wishing to oppose the grant of the pro-active exclusion shall be considered in the place of a domain name holder.

B. Petition for Exception from Exclusion

(a) Filing of a Petition for Exception from Exclusion

43. After a second-level domain name has been excluded from any of the gTLDs, a future domain name applicant may only obtain the registration of that second-level domain name in that gTLD by filing a petition for exception from exclusion, based on a showing of some substantial independent right to use the name. The challenger in the original challenge (or the petitioner in the original pro-active petition) which resulted in the exclusion shall be notified and shall have the opportunity to participate fully.

(b) Determinations

44. The ACP shall consider a petition for an exception from an exclusion utilizing the same criteria and standards as would be used in a challenge. For the purposes of the petition procedures, the petitioner shall be considered in the place of a domain name holder, and, if the challenger in the original challenge (or the petitioner in the original pro-active petition) participates, he shall be considered in the place of a challenger.

45. Any exception from an exclusion shall apply to the petitioner only.

C. Petition for Modification or Cancellation of an Exclusion

(a) Filing of a Petition for Modification or Cancellation of an Exclusion

46. After a second-level domain name has been excluded from any of the gTLDs, a third party may bring a petition to have the exclusion modified or canceled based upon a showing that the circumstances on which the exclusion was granted have since materially changed (for example, lapse of the trademark registration(s)). The challenger in the original challenge (or the petitioner in the original pro-active petition) which resulted in the exclusion shall be notified and shall have the opportunity to participate fully.

47. Grounds for lodging a petition for modification or cancellation of an exclusion shall include, among others, a relevant subsequent national or regional court final (unappealable) decision.

(b) Determinations

48. The ACP shall consider a petition for modification or cancellation of the exclusion utilizing the same criteria and standards as would be used in a challenge. For the purposes of the petition procedures, the petitioner shall be considered in the place of a domain name holder, and, if the challenger in the original challenge (or the petitioner in the original pro-active petition) participates, he shall be considered in the place of a challenger.

49. Any modification or cancellation of an exclusion shall apply to everyone, whether or not they participated in the petition procedures.

D. Bad Faith

50. Where a petitioner is found by the ACP to have filed the petition in bad faith, the ACP shall deny the petition, the petitioner may be required to bear any costs of other parties, and the petitioner may be precluded from filing any requests for challenge or petitions before ACPs in the future with respect to any domain names.

51. Where a participant is found by the ACP to have participated in the procedures in bad faith, the ACP shall disregard the contribution of the participant. The participant may be required to bear the costs of the petitioner and/or other participants, and may be precluded from filing any request for challenge or petitions before ACPs in the future with respect to any domain names.

A. Request for General Exclusion

52. This section shall apply where a request for challenge or a petition for pro-active exclusion includes a request for a general exclusion (see Section IV.A(a)(iii) and Section V.A(a), above).

B. Submission of Search Report

53. Each person that files a request for general exclusion must submit to the ACP, to aid the ACP in making its determination, a recent world-wide search report from a bona fide search firm, showing, in particular, the extent to which the alphanumeric string which is the subject of his intellectual property right is also the subject of intellectual property rights held by others, unless such a search report had already been submitted pursuant to Section V.A(d), above.

C. Determinations Which May Be Made in the Context of a Request for General Exclusion

54. In the context of a request for general exclusion, the ACP may determine that the second-level domain name is:

(i) excluded from all gTLDs in which it has not yet been registered; or

(ii) excluded from some but not all of the gTLDs in which it has not yet been registered; for example, the ACP may choose not to exclude the second-level domain name from gTLDs which are dedicated to personal names.

D. Factors to Be Considered in Making Determinations

55. ACPs shall make their determinations based on a balancing of all circumstances of the case, including the factors set out in Section IV.C, above, plus the following considerations:

(a) Extent and Uniqueness of Intellectual Property Rights

56. The ACP shall consider whether the requester's intellectual property rights have sufficient extent and uniqueness to justify a general exclusion.

57. In particular, the ACP shall consider the geographical extent and uniqueness of the requester's intellectual property rights, and the geographical extent of the requester's market presence related to the alphanumeric string that is the subject of the intellectual property rights. In that context, the ACP may consider, taking into account the relevant field of technology or commerce, whether the requester holds intellectual property rights with effect for a large enough number of countries to justify a general exclusion, and the extent of intellectual property rights held by others. Other evidence of the geographical extent of intellectual property rights and/or market presence may also be considered.

(b) Recognition

58. The ACP may consider relevant evidence concerning the extent of recognition, by users of the Internet, of the alphanumeric string as being the subject of the intellectual property rights of the requester.

(c) Interests of Users of the Internet

59. The ACP shall consider, where appropriate, the interests of users of the Internet in having available, to parties other than the requester, second-level domain names which correspond to the alphanumeric string that is the subject of the intellectual property rights. In this context, "users of the Internet" shall include potential domain name holders as well as persons who would potentially use those domain names to find a particular Internet site.

60. Appeals shall be based on the information and materials that were presented to the ACP in the proceeding that is being appealed, and shall be decided on the basis of whether there was an obvious mistake of fact, or whether the determination of the ACP in that proceeding was, based on those materials, manifestly unreasonable. An appeal may be summarily dismissed if it is apparent that there was no obvious mistake of fact and the determination of the ACP was not manifestly unreasonable.

61. Any determination of an ACP shall be made public on the Internet, and shall be implemented by the central CORE-gTLD database operator, upon notification of the operator by the WIPO Center.