Top Menu

Archive | October, 2012

Complainant’s Burden to Prove Knowledge and Intent

Respondent’s default to some extent lightens complainant’s burden to prove knowledge and intent while its appearance and rebuttal testimony heightens it. Rule 15(a) provides that “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law […]

Continue Reading 0

Registration “Before Notice” and Offering Bona Fide Goods or Services Good Defense to UDRP Complaint

While merely registering and holding a domain name confers no right or legitimate interest, a domain name can be legitimized if 1) “before any notice … of the dispute”, 2) respondent “has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name”, and 3) “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.” […]

Continue Reading 0

Why Should a Complainant Who Has No Actionable Claim Be Excused of Wrongful Conduct in Maintaining a UDRP Proceeding?

A claim of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) ultimately rests on complainant untruthfully certifying that “the information contained in th[e] Complaint is to the best of [its] knowledge complete and accurate [and] that th[e] Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass [the respondent].” Paragraph 3(b)(xiv) of the Rules of […]

Continue Reading 0

Laches (+ 4(a)(ii)) = 4(c)(i)

Panels in the formative cases held that there was “no room for general equitable doctrines under the Policy such as would be possessed by Courts in common law jurisdictions.” Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Ult. Search Inc., D2001-1319 (WIPO February 1, 2002). The Panel in The Hebrew University of Jerusalem v. Alberta Hot Rods, D2002-0616 (WIPO October […]

Continue Reading 0

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

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