Top Menu

Archive | October, 2016

Corresponding to Trademarks, But Nonactionable Claims for Cybersquatting

The threshold for an actionable claim under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is a trademark in which complainant has rights.” “Rights” means a trademark that could have been newly minted a moment before filing the complaint. This is different from the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in which trademark owners must have […]

Continue Reading 0

The Importance of Protecting Credibility: Claiming and Rebutting Cybersquatting

The UDRP is an online dispute resolution regime. While panelists technically have discretion under Rule 13 to hold in-person hearings if they “determine[ ] . . .  and as an exceptional matter, that such a hearing is necessary for deciding the complaint” no in-person hearing has ever been held. Rule 13 exists to be ignored. […]

Continue Reading 0

Supplementing the Record in UDRP Proceedings; When Acceptable?

The UDRP limits parties’ submissions to complaints and responses; accepting “further statements or documents” is discretionary with the Panel (Rule 12, Procedural Orders), although the Forum (in Supplemental Rule 7) but not WIPO provides for supplementing the record with the proviso that “[a]dditional submissions must not amend the Complaint or Response.” For some panelists, Rule […]

Continue Reading 0

Noncommercial and Fair Use in Rebutting Claims for Abusive Registration of Domain Names

The UDRP lists three nonexclusive circumstances for rebutting lack of rights or legitimate interests in domain names, which if successful also concludes the issue of abusive registration in respondent’s favor. The third circumstance is “you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert […]

Continue Reading 1

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

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