Abusive registration
- September 23, 2010
Further on the subject of scope discussed in Yesterday’s Note. The UDRP appears clear in its scope, that it is…
, , - September 21, 2010
It is undoubtedly true that a respondent who holds inactive for many years a domain name identical to a trademark…
, , , - September 20, 2010
Hershey manufactures a “candy twist” under the trademark TWIZZLERS. The word “twizzler” does not appear in standard desk dictionaries; it…
, - September 17, 2010
Complainants whose trademarks are composed of surnames relatively rare in their marketplace but held by a respondent bearing that name…
, - September 10, 2010
Unless there is “intent to capitalize on the Complainant’s trademark interest, the Complainant cannot assert an exclusive right over a…
, - August 31, 2010
Trademark law recognizes, with qualification that two parties can be entitled to the use of similar, even identical lexical strings…
, , - August 20, 2010
A certificate of registration satisfies the threshold requirement for maintaining a UDRP proceeding while a mere “intent to use” application…
, , , - August 17, 2010
In the curious case of Eneco BV v. Eneco, D2010-0548 (WIPO July 7, 2010) – curious because the Panel made…
, , - August 16, 2010
The complainant has the burden of proof on all elements of the Policy. It is lighter where the complainant has…
, - August 5, 2010
Complainant has the initial burden of proof while respondent has the burden of persuasion on the right or legitimate interest…
, - August 3, 2010
In common law jurisdictions an unregistered trademark is no less protected than one registered. But, the burden of proof is…
, - August 2, 2010
The greater the geographic distance between parties the more plausible the respondent’s denial that at the time it registered the…
, ,