Top Menu

Archive | Cybersquatting

Renewal of Registration of Domain Names Used in Bad Faith

Whether renewal of registration of domain names used in bad faith is actionable is an urgent question for complainants who either acquired their marks later than domain name registration; or if earlier are unable to prove respondents had any knowledge of their marks when the domain names were registered. Under UDRP jurisprudence the consensus view […]

Continue Reading 0

Proving Knowledge in UDRP Jurisprudence

A defendant’s liability for infringement under trademark law rests on using the mark without the owner’s permission. Knowledge is not an element of proof for registered marks; it is imputed. Constructive notice is a statutory feature of the Lanham Act. Ignorance is not a defense to infringement or cybersquatting. This is not the case under […]

Continue Reading 0

Knowledge as Evidence of Abusive Registration

See Anthology of Commentaries — 2014 Knowledge is the key element in proving abusive registration. In obvious cases such as British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc, Sky IP International Limited, Sky International AG v. Tarek Esmail, D2014-1792 (WIPO December 26, 2014) (SKY NEWS and <skynewsmisr.com> and Rockefeller & Co. Inc. v. William Foo, D2014-1886 (WIPO December […]

Continue Reading 0

Legitimate Activity and Legitimacy of Passive Holding in Defending Claims of Cybersquatting

 See Anthology of Commentaries — 2014 Of the three paragraph 4(c) defenses the first and third share a common element, namely that the domain names must resolve to active websites. Under neither head can a respondent passively hold a disputed domain name and prevail under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(c)(i) requires proof of […]

Continue Reading 0

Proving Cybersquatting on Weak Trademarks

See Anthology of Commentaries — 2014 Proving cybersquatting on weak trademarks rises in difficulty as the marks descend the classification scale. Dictionary words such as “bespoke”, “emoney” and “upbeat”, descriptive phrases such as “historic hotels” and “broadband voice” , combined words such as “md online”, “master page” and “great courses” and compounds such as in […]

Continue Reading 0

Standard for Declaring Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

See Anthology of Commentaries — 2014 Except where complainant’s claim is truly egregious for which there can be said to be a “settled policy”––Happy as Clams, Inc., a California Corp., DBA Date Like a Grownup v. Heather Dugan, D2014-1655 (WIPO November 1, 2014)––there is no fixed standard for declaring reverse domain name hijacking. This is […]

Continue Reading 0

Defense of Free Speech Under UDRP Depends On the Panel You Draw

It may be surprising to learn that defense of free speech under UDRP depends on the Panel you draw; but there’s an explanation, which is that not all panelists’ views are harmonized as happens in common law courts that follow a strict precedential regime imposed by appellate authority. “The panel you draw” warning comes from […]

Continue Reading 0

Financial Consequences of Cybersquatting: A Cautionary Tale

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 […]

Continue Reading 0

Registering Trademark Without First Obtaining Corresponding Domain Name

Complainant who registers a  trademarks without first obtaining corresponding domain name has no actionable claim against respondent already holding that domain name, at least under the UDRP as traditionally applied. What is meant by “traditional” is that complainant has to prove bad faith in the conjunctive. Yet, despite this obvious truth that trademark rights have […]

Continue Reading 0

Evidentiary Demands in a UDRP Proceeding

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 […]

Continue Reading 0

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

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