## Facts

- Eric Dluhos registered the domain name **leestrasberg.com** through Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) under an agreement incorporating ICANN’s **Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)**.
- Representatives of Anna Strasberg, the Estate of Lee Strasberg, and the Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute, represented in part by CMG Worldwide and Mark Roesler, asserted that Dluhos’s registration violated Strasberg-related trademark rights.
- The Strasberg parties initiated a **UDRP administrative proceeding** before the **National Arbitration Forum (NAF)** seeking transfer of the domain name.
- The NAF panel ordered the domain name **transferred** from Dluhos to the Strasberg parties.
- Dluhos filed suit in the District of New Jersey against the Strasberg defendants, the CMG defendants, and NSI, asserting constitutional and § 1983 claims, state-law claims, and an **ACPA** claim under **15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v)** challenging the transfer.
- The district court treated the UDRP decision as an arbitration award reviewable under the **Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)** and dismissed the complaint under **Rule 12(b)(6)**.

## Issues

1. Whether a UDRP administrative proceeding constitutes “arbitration” under the **FAA**, thereby limiting judicial review to the FAA’s highly deferential standards.
2. If the FAA does not apply, whether the district court erred by (a) reviewing the UDRP decision under FAA/“manifest disregard” standards and (b) dismissing the complaint, including the registrant’s **ACPA** claim, under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Decision

- The Third Circuit **reversed** the district court’s approach and held that **UDRP proceedings are not arbitration under the FAA**.
- The court ruled that the district court **erred** by applying FAA and “manifest disregard” review to the NAF decision.
- The court **vacated** the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and **remanded** for further proceedings under the proper standards, including consideration of the **ACPA** claim without FAA-style deference.

## Legal Principles

- **UDRP decisions are not FAA arbitration awards** because the UDRP contemplates court litigation and does not produce a final, binding award with exclusive, narrow judicial review.
- A registrant may pursue **independent judicial relief** notwithstanding a UDRP result; courts may determine domain-name rights without treating UDRP outcomes as entitled to FAA confirmation/vacatur limits.
- **15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) (ACPA)** authorizes a registrant whose domain name has been transferred, suspended, or disabled due to a registrar’s response to a trademark complaint to bring an action to establish that the registration or use is lawful; adjudication is **independent** of the UDRP outcome.
- The **FAA does not itself confer federal question jurisdiction**; jurisdiction must rest on an independent federal basis.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that UDRP transfer decisions are not subject to the FAA’s deferential arbitration-award review and that a domain-name registrant may seek independent judicial adjudication—particularly under the ACPA—requiring the district court to evaluate the claims under ordinary federal standards rather than FAA vacatur doctrines.


Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3d Cir. 2003)