Top Menu

Archive | Cybersquatting

Failing to Prove Abusive Registration Through Ineptness

Unlike court actions default in responding to complaints is not deemed an admission of liability. Complainant carries the burden to the end. That’s why it’s particularly interesting to read from time to time of disputes in which complainants are utterly inept on the evidentiary demands for proving their cases. Panels have shown little tolerance for […]

Continue Reading 0

Theft as Per Se Abusive Registration

It is an interesting proposition that certain conduct unrebutted be regarded as a per se violation of the UDRP; the very fact of the respondent having committed a certain act—hijacking a domain name is one, or threatening to point a domain name to adult content is another candidate (Gryphon Internet, LLC v. thank you corp. […]

Continue Reading 0

Overreaching: Priority of Rights to Domain Names

Complainants whose trademarks postdate domain name registrations continue to misunderstand the law as it applies to their rights under both the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).While cyberspace has unlimited capacity (assuming availability of power) and plenty of room for everyone who wants to be there only […]

Continue Reading 0

Terminating or Suspending a UDRP Proceeding

The UDRP as a nonexclusive forum for resolving disputes over domain name registrations allows respondents to remove complainant’s claim to a court of competent jurisdiction, Rule 4(k), which in the U.S. is a district court in one of the venues authorized under Rule 3(b)(xiii) (complainant’s agreement to mutual jurisdiction). Rule 4(k) requires proof respondent has […]

Continue Reading 0

Trademark Owner’s Right to Earlier Registered Domain Name

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) provides that “[a] person shall be liable in a civil action by an owner of a mark . . . if . . . the mark . . . is distinctive at the time of the registration of the domain name. . . .” This surely means that if […]

Continue Reading 0

Getting it Wrong: It Happens!

Over the years the UDRP has attracted a good amount of criticism hewing to one of two poles, accusing panelists of either cognitive impairment or bias. There are panelists’ (it is said) “who substitute their personal views for the agreed language of the UDRP.” Other critics complain that there is a “fundamental bias in the […]

Continue Reading 0

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

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