Top Menu

Archive | December, 2015

Certifying to Merit of Cybersquatting Claim Where There is None

There is no merit to the belief held by some trademark owners that domain names corresponding to trademarks infringe their exclusive rights on the Internet regardless the date of registration. For the ACPA the threshold issue is whether the trademark was “distinctive at the time of the registration of the domain name.” Although no such […]

Continue Reading 0

When is Re-Registration or Renewal of Registration Actionable Under the ACPA?

Jysk Bed’N Linen v. Dutta-Roy , 13-15309 (11th Cir. December 16, 2015) Although the UDRP and the ACPA have different architectures—the former is a conjunctive while the latter is a disjunctive model—and have the same purpose of combatting cybersquatting, they compel different results in some fact situations. This is particularly the case when the question […]

Continue Reading 0

Entitlement to Short Letter Domain Names

Claims of cybersquatting for registering and holding two and three letter domain names have a history dating back to the first year of the operation of the UDRP. The earliest examples are <>, Tenenhaus Philippe v. Telepathy, Inc, 94355 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 17, 2000), and <> Kis v. Ltd, D2000-0770 (WIPO November 20, […]

Continue Reading 0

UDRP is Niche Forum for Cybersquatting, Not Trademark Infringement

The UDRP is not a general court for trademark infringement, but a niche forum for a particular kind of infringement. It authorizes Panels to determine whether domain names incorporating a complainants’ trademarks violate the terms of s respondent’s warranty, i.e. that it “will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third-party.” The […]

Continue Reading 0

Domain Names Combining Complainant’s Marks with Marks of Third Parties

Where there are multiple, related complainants each will be entitled to the domain name in which it has a right and a right to the remedy it elects. However, where the accused domain name is composed of trademarks owned by different parties, but only one is complaining the question turns on whether the complainant is […]

Continue Reading 0

Passive Holding of Domain Name Not Grounds for Forfeiture

It is an interesting phenomenon that complainants and their counsel continue to believe that trademark owners have greater rights to corresponding domain names than domain name holders who have priority of registration. Their arguments unfold in a familiar line of false reasoning that inactivity of use and renewal of registration (to take just two contentions) […]

Continue Reading 0


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

%d bloggers like this: