Panels in formative cases held 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). This is consistent with the recommendation in the WIPO Final Report that “a time bar to the bringing […]
Archive | January, 2013
Use in Bad Faith Alone Is Insufficient to Prove Cybersqatting
By Gerald M. Levine on January 17, 2013 in Abusive registration, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy
I have pointed out in earlier Notes that the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Anticybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA) are constructed on different models for proof of cybersquatting. The UDRP requires proof of bad faith in the conjunctive; while the standard demanded under the ACPA is either registration or use in bad faith. […]
Respondent’s Burden of Persuasion is Disjunctive: Rights or Legitimate Interests
By Gerald M. Levine on January 11, 2013 in Abusive registration, Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy
Respondent’s burden of persuasion under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is disjunctive. It satisfies the requirement if it has either a right or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, in which event the complaint must be dismissed. The test is framed in the present tense: “[Respondent] lacks any right or legitimate interest” in […]
Registering Trademark With Knowledge that Corresponding Domain Name is Taken
By Gerald M. Levine on January 3, 2013 in Abusive registration, Contracts/Copyright, Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy
There is not an available, corresponding domain name for every trademark so it would seem prudential for a party before it becomes invested in what it regards as a desirable moniker to research the Whois database before filing its trademark application. The domain name should be purchased before application to avoid the frustration of learning […]