Abusive registration
- May 12, 2010
There is no consensus on the standards of proof to be applied in reaching a finding of reverse domain name…
, - May 10, 2010
Paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy has specific reference to the acts of a competitor. If for its “primary purpose” a…
, - May 3, 2010
Where there is a parity of right, the first to register a domain name comprised of a string of syllables,…
, - April 28, 2010
Domains that are identical or confusingly similar to a well known trademark of which the respondent cannot plausibly deny knowledge…
, - April 27, 2010
Companies come and go and reputations grow or wither, but at the start new businesses are one among many offering…
, - April 23, 2010
Holding a trademark does not guarantee a right to a corresponding domain name even where the trademark antedates the registration…
, - April 21, 2010
Unless a complainant has a trademark right with priority over the respondent’s choice there is no principle of law that…
, - April 16, 2010
Domain names composed of a number of words that may include one identical to a trademark is not ipso facto…
, - April 14, 2010
It is not surprising that holders of trademarks on the lower end of the classification scale insist that their compositions…
, - April 12, 2010
Orthographic variations such as adding, omitting and transposing letters suggest that the respondent’s motivation for registering a disputed domain name…
, - April 9, 2010
Passage of time can support a respondent’s defense of legitimate interest if “before any notice” it used “the domain name…
, - April 8, 2010
For trademarks on the weaker end of the spectrum the complainant cannot simply rely on the respondent’s mode of business.…
,