The UDRP analysis begins with assessing the closeness of the domain name to the trademark. Identical is letter by letter the same; similar is a string that can be confused with the trademark. A complainant has standing to maintain a proceding only if it can show that the accused domain name raisees the probability of […]
Assigning burdens in a UDRP proceeding is well established. For all paragraph 4(c) defenses respondent’s proof must establish “past” and “present” as opposed to “future” use of the disputed domain name. Thus, for paragraph 4(c)(i) respondent must demonstrate its “[present and past] use of” or “demonstrable [present] preparations to use” the domain name constitutes a […]
There have been a number of cases lately in which complainant has either failed to prove a prima facie case or been unable to overcome respondent’s evidence of its right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent’s use of the domain name is a critical factor, but so too is the trademark. Longevity […]
