Abusive registration
- December 21, 2010
The Panel in Apple Inc. v. Andrew Sievright, Domain Source, D2010-1916 (WIPO December 8, 2010) (<appl.com>) notes that "[t]yposquatting is…
, - December 18, 2010
In prosecuting a claim under the UDRP the complainant cannot prevail unless it demonstrates that the respondent had its trademark…
, - December 14, 2010
In view of the fact that the UDRP is a paper only proceeding the pleadings and evidence must be developed…
, - December 9, 2010
It is not selling domain names that is unlawful under the UDRP but registering them “primarily” with that purpose in…
, - December 7, 2010
That respondents can avoid the ultimate penalty of forfeiture with a trademark plus negative or disputatious terms is well established…
, - December 2, 2010
Where a number of parties share a right to a trademark the complainant has the burden of demonstrating that it…
, , - November 30, 2010
The respondent's sole contribution under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy should be to confute the complainant's assertion of jurisdiction: that…
, , - November 27, 2010
Seaports, airports, cities and municipalities have not fared well in their claims to take possession of disputed domain names. Geographic…
, , - November 20, 2010
Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy contains three conjunctive elements: “before any notice to you of the dispute”, “[you made] demonstrable…
, - November 16, 2010
The sole remedy for respondents hauled into a UDRP proceeding without cause is a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.…
, , - November 11, 2010
Registrations of domain names are not abusive merely because they happen to be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.…
, - November 5, 2010
The Panel in Tradewind Media, LLC d/b/a Intopic Media v. Jayson Hahn, D2010-1413 (WIPO October 27, 2010) notes that “we…
,