Disputes declared outside the scope of the UDRP affirms the Policy’s limited jurisdiction. The Policy is designed to address claims of cyber infringement of an owner’s trademark, not to determine trademark infringement or claims of business disputes. To be sure the demarcation between disputes within and other outside the scope of the Policy can be […]
Attorneys have tried using trademarks to market professional services, but the outcome applies to all professionals as the surgeon found out in Accuray Incorporated v. Sanjay Mongia / Nuero Network, FA1409001582340 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 3, 2014). In this case Respondent argues that incorporating a trademark is not an abusive registration. It should qualify as […]
Except for the time and expense of having to defend claims of infringement there are no severe financial consequences of cybersquatting under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution. The UDRP is essentially a summary proceeding for evicting domain names from their cyber spaces, either cancelling registrations of infringing domain names or transferring the registrations to […]
There is no consensus for reverse domain name hijacking; rather, there is a diversity of views about the conduct that would support it. Rule 15(e) authorizes the Panel “to declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding … [i]f after considering the submissions […]
To succeed in a UDRP case parties must pay attentiion to the evidentiary demands of the process. Complaints are dismissed or denied for three reasons, either complainant 1) lacks priority for its trademark over the domain name; 2) failed to marshal evidence sufficient to prove abusive registration, or 3) respondent has rebutted complainant’s allegations that […]
This article, “Opportunist Registrations of Domain Names: What Is Going On, and What Tools Are Available for Trademark Owners,” appears in Bright Ideas, a publication of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the New York State Bar Association, Fall 2014, Vol. 23, No. 2. Bright Ideas Gml Article I. Introduction In June, 2011, the Board […]
Trademark dictionary words, compounds, phrases and acronyms (or strings of arbitrary letters complainants claim as trademarks) are regularly contested in UDRP proceedings. The registry of trademarks includes numerous dictionary words used fancifully or arbitrarily –– “apple”, “blackberry,” and “orange” (just to name some in the fruit category) –– whose marketplace associations for particular sources of […]
Abuse of process in a UDRP proceeding carries risk for reverse domain name hijacking if respondent appears and proves complainant has falsified the facts. There have undoubtedly been cases in which complainant prevails solely because respondent has defaulted — let us call it the “no show” strategum — where a defense may have changed the […]
Non-authorized use of trademark is not prohibited as long as the use is fair, but “fair” is narrowly defined under UDRP/URS jurisprudence although it could be for a commercial purpose. So, for example, it is not improper to incorporate a trademark where the domain name “seek[s] to communicate the nature of the service or product […]
Lapse of time versus a laches defense to cybersquatting claim in a udrp case is likely to benefit domain name holder unless the trademark is well-known or famous. While Panels are in accord that waiting too long to initiate a complaint makes it difficult to prove bad faith registration they are split on whether laches […]
