Top Menu

Archive | April, 2010

Evidentiary Burden for Proving Trademark of Personal Name

The Panel in Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. C&D International Ltd. and Whois Privacy Protection Service, D2004-0108 (WIPO July 22, 2004) (<>) stated the proposition in the following way: As the degree of fame decreases from clearly identifiable celebrities with worldwide renown, to nationwide renown or to less well known authors, actors or businessmen with […]

Continue Reading 0

Invitation to Refile a Complaint Where License Wrongfully Terminated

This Note reviews an issue not frequently before a Panel, namely complainant’s right to maintain a subsequent proceeding where the current status indicates that its license to use a trademark has, rightly or wrongly, been terminated in favor of the respondent. Licensees are among those included as allowable complainants under paragraph 3(a) of the Rules […]

Continue Reading 0

Bad Faith Must be Directed at Complainant or its Trademark

Domains that are identical or confusingly similar to a well known trademark of which the respondent cannot plausibly deny knowledge are on one end of the spectrum. In a great majority of these cases respondents do not bother to answer the complaint unless they can offer or the record contains sufficient evidence that supports a […]

Continue Reading 0

Proving Reputation to Counter Denial of Knowledge

Companies come and go and reputations grow or wither, but at the start new businesses are one among many offering similar goods or services. When parties acquire their respective interests close in time and are geographically distant from each other the question of the respondent’s knowledge of the trademark holder is a significant factor in […]

Continue Reading 0

Credibility as a Factor in Determining Parties’ Rights to a Disputed Domain Name

Although UDRP complaints are resolved solely on papers without benefit of discovery and with no right of confrontation it would be a mistake to discount credibility as a factor in determining parties’ rights to a disputed domain name. Parties make their appearances in submissions and can be judged for their candor or lack of it, […]

Continue Reading 0

Not Granting a License is Not Dispositive of a Respondent’s Legitimate Interest

Holding a trademark does not guarantee a right to a corresponding domain name even where the trademark antedates the registration of the domain name. The paragraph 4(c) defenses, in fact, expressly recognize differences of timing. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy opens with the phrase “[b]efore notice of the dispute” expressing thereby that a respondent’s right […]

Continue Reading 0

Similarity of Domain Name and Trademark Unsurprising Where Parties Service Same Market

Although in Around The Rings Inc. and World Football Insider Inc. v. Dunsar Media Company Limited, Duncan Mackay, Sarah Bowron /, D2010-0153 (WIPO April 7, 2010) the Panel found the similarity between domain name and trademark confusing on a side by side examination – “on this element [the parties’ cases] are finely balanced” – […]

Continue Reading 0

Right to Regain Domain Name Earlier Registered than Trademark Not Dependent on Respondent’s Use, Non-Use or Underutilization Of It

Unless a complainant has a trademark right with priority over the respondent’s choice there is no principle of law that allows it to acquire a domain name by forfeiture. This does not mean that a respondent’s earlier registration necessarily defeats a prima facie case, but a complainant’s argument that it has a superior right because […]

Continue Reading 0

The Policy Offers Relief for Abusive Registration of a Domain Name Not Infringement of Trademark

We have to remember that the UDRP is a proceeding of limited scope. The respondent has agreed to submit to arbitration only the issue of abusive registration. The Panel is not empowered to rule on trademark infringement, although infringement of the right secured by trademark is certainly the basis for a ruling in favor of […]

Continue Reading 0

Recapturing a Lapsed Domain Name

Domain names are not literally owned. Rather, they are held for a length of time pursuant to a registration agreement that must periodically be renewed. The better analogy is to a valuable leasehold interest with an option to renew that can be lost if the registration is allowed to lapse. Trademark holders incorporating their trademarks […]

Continue Reading 0


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

%d bloggers like this: