Top Menu

Archive | December, 2014

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

UDRPs Evidentiary Demands

See Anthology of Commentaries — 2014 The UDRP is essentially composed of three blocks of checklists that lay out the evidence each party is expected to offer on its claim or defense. Paragraphs 4(a)(i – iii) detail the requirements a trademark owner must satisfy to prove its claim: it has to have standing to maintain […]

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

%d bloggers like this: