- June 11, 2010Respondents have a heavy burden in proving rights or legitimate interests in domain names for purveying pornographic content identical or…
- June 10, 2010There can be two independent reasons for unawareness of a complainant or its trademark. One is the trademark’s lexical composition…
- June 9, 2010There is a struggle going on in the community of UDRP panelists. One group of panelists would expand the circumstances…
- June 8, 2010Nominative fair use and initial interest confusion are opposite propositions, but they have in common unauthorized use of a complainant’s…
- June 7, 2010The timing of notice can be a critical factor in determining parties’ respective rights to a disputed domain name. A…
- June 4, 2010Parties controlling evidence must produce it to establish their contentions. Non production leads to the conclusion that the asserted proof…
- June 3, 2010No person is entitled to a monopoly over words that are common to all. Trademarks composed of generic terms or…
- June 2, 2010A respondent’s choice of a domain name incorporating a trademark for the purpose of identifying its business rather than competing…
- June 1, 2010Registration of a domain name inadvertently allowed to lapse is more likely to be recaptured if the complainant has acted…
- May 28, 2010The line separating issues within from those outside the scope of the Policy is not always clear. Contract disputes relating…
- May 27, 2010Fan clubs generally come into existence without express permission and sometimes over the (frequently delayed) objection of the honoree to…
- May 26, 2010The twin bete noires of the market are confusion and deception, which (as one legal mechanism) the UDRP is designed…