Top Menu

Archive | September, 2009

Full Disclosure Expected Plus Explanation

More often than expected complainants (even those represented by eminent counsel) commence proceedings without fully understanding the requirements of the UDRP or their burdens of proof. Having rights as a condition for maintaining a UDRP proceedings means present rights, whether registered or unregistered, but it does not include applications to register an intent to use […]

Continue Reading 0

The Use of Precedent in UDRP Decisions

Paragraph 4.1 of the WIPO Overview in response to the question “What deference should be owed to past UDRP decisions dealing with similar factual matters and legal issues?” states that the consensus view is “The UDRP does not operate on a strict doctrine of precedent.” However it is a rare panelist who writes a decision […]

Continue Reading 0

Market Penetration as Proof of Awareness

Domain names can be identical or confusingly similar to trademarks and respondents can even lack rights or legitimate interests (as those terms are defined under the Policy) without infringing holder’s rights. Bad faith is defined as intentional conduct. The strength of the trademark, its penetration in the market, the businesses involved and the location of […]

Continue Reading 0

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

4/xVVyQrMpFFp6VcOTT2qD9g.0oyCn-dWDJ0cJvIeHux6iLYvgUztkQI
%d bloggers like this: