Top Menu

Archive | November, 2009

Prior Business Relationships

The UDRP provides a remedy for abusive registrations of domain names, including against parties formerly related, but jurisdiction does not extend to disputes or circumstances concerning past relationships. The Respondent in Feline Instincts, LLC v. Feline Future Cat Food Co., Inc., FA0906001270908 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 2, 2009) claimed that prior to partnering with the […]

Continue Reading 0

Date of Registration For Determining Bad Faith

In assessing bad faith “the complainant must prove that the respondent has ‘targeted’ the complainant or its mark in some way, or at the very least that the respondent had the complainant or its trademark in mind when it selected the disputed domain name,” Foodcube Technologies Inc. v. Registrant [1349920]: Domain Administrator, Foodcube Takeaways, D2009-0945 […]

Continue Reading 0

Limits to Unauthorized Resellers, Distributors and Consultants

Two recent decisions have highlighted Respondents’ legitimate interests in domain names that incorporate a holder’s trademark, by happenstance the same Complainant, SAP AG v. SAP User List, D2009-1285 (WIPO November 8, 2009) (November 17, 2009, LegitimateUse) and SAP AG v. UniSAP, Inc., D2009-0297 (WIPO April 28, 2009) (May 29, 2009, Incorporating). That there are limits […]

Continue Reading 0

Test of Knowledge; Awareness of Complainant’s Trademark

Paragraph 2 of the UDRP reads that by “applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us that … (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of […]

Continue Reading 0

Can There Be Typo-Piracy Before Issuance of a Trademark?

Registering 1,017 variants of the Complainant’s trademark FREECREDITREPORT.COM is eye-popping and in its way hugely comic. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. v. Netcorp Netcorp c/o Netcorp, FA0909001283469 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 11, 2009). Here is a dozen sampling from the beginning of the alphabet: <arfreecreditreport.com>, <asfreecreditreport.com>, <bfreecreditreport.com>, <breecreditreport.com>, <cafreecreditreport.com>, <cfreecreditreport.com>, <cofreecreditreport.com>, <connecticutfreecreditreport.com>, <ctfreecreditreport.com>, <dcfreecreditreport.com>, <defreecreditreport.com>, <dfreecreditreport.com>. How does […]

Continue Reading 0

Complainant, Successor Trademark Holder

Successor trademark holders complaining about domain names registered before they acquired their interests have the added burden of not having all the documentary facts and sometimes no explanation for long delays in taking action against a registrant . This was illustrated recently in Shem, LLC v. Solytix, Inc., D2009-0739 (WIPO July 30, 2009) for <autocar.com> […]

Continue Reading 0

The Problem of Waiting Too Long

A long line of decisions holds that laches is not applicable to a UDRP proceeding, but waiting too long to assert a claim weakens the complainant’s case. The majority in Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. FanMail.com, LLC., D2009-1139 (WIPO November 2, 2009) noted that “the considerable delay in bringing this case […]

Continue Reading 0

Confusingly Similar and Similar But Not Confusing

There are domain names though similar are not necessarily confusingly similar. They sit on the borderline, and not surprisingly their status may be viewed differently by different panelists. In the same way that a an original registrant is regarded differently from an assignee (the good faith of one is not heritable by the other for […]

Continue Reading 0

Legitimate Use of Trademark: Consultants, Distributors and Resellers

First it was authorized resellers whose incorporation of a complainant’s trademark was deemed to be legitimate if they met the 4-part test originally announced in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO November 6, 2001). Subsequently, the legitimacy was extended to unauthorized resellers, distributors and consultants. The 4-part test requires that the respondent […]

Continue Reading 0

Timely Answer and Supplemental Submissions

The Rules of the Policy limit each party to one pleading (Paragraphs 3 [complaint] and 5 [answer]), which can be supplemented in either of two ways, by the parties submitting supplementary material requested by the Panel under Paragraph 12 of the Rules or with the Panel’s permission upon a party’s request. Paragraph 12 is generally […]

Continue Reading 0

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

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