## Facts

- Dan Parisi registered and used the domain name “netlearning.com” for an online business and sought (unsuccessfully) to register “NETLEARNING” as a trademark.
- Netlearning, Inc. used “Net-Learning” and “Net-Learning.com” in commerce and sought to obtain “netlearning.com,” allegedly offering up to $22,500.
- Netlearning filed a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) complaint asserting that “netlearning.com” was confusingly similar to its mark, that Parisi lacked legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith.
- A divided UDRP panel ruled for Netlearning and ordered transfer of “netlearning.com” from Parisi to Netlearning.
- The UDRP provides only two remedies: cancellation or transfer of the domain name.

## Issues

1. Whether a UDRP “mandatory administrative proceeding” constitutes “arbitration” under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
2. If the FAA applies, whether the registrant’s federal declaratory judgment action is an untimely or improper attempt to vacate an arbitration award, limiting review to the FAA’s narrow standards.

## Decision

- The court denied Netlearning’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held that UDRP proceedings are not arbitration within the meaning of the FAA.
- Because the FAA did not apply, Parisi’s action was not restricted to FAA vacatur procedures or time limits, and the dispute could be litigated in court.

## Legal Principles

- A dispute-resolution process is treated as FAA arbitration only when the parties agree to a final, binding alternative to litigation that is intended to resolve the controversy subject to limited judicial review.
- UDRP proceedings are a contract-based administrative mechanism with a narrow subject matter (abusive domain registrations) and limited remedies (transfer or cancellation), which differs from arbitration that commonly provides broader, dispute-ending relief.
- The UDRP expressly contemplates court litigation before, during, or after the administrative proceeding; this incompatibility with final, binding arbitration supports de novo judicial adjudication of the parties’ substantive rights.
- Civil actions challenging a UDRP transfer order proceed as ordinary lawsuits, not as FAA-governed motions to vacate arbitration awards.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a UDRP panel’s transfer order is not an arbitration award under the FAA, so the registrant’s declaratory judgment action could proceed without FAA-imposed limits on timing or scope of judicial review.


Parisi v. Netlearning, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Va. 2001)