Category Archive

Please join the CIIDRC for an informative and free session, open to all via Zoom on February 26, 2025. Sign up here! Complimentary Webinar Register Here! UDRP Perspectives has been updated with new perspectives on the topics of Trademark Infringement and Reputation, written by Igor Motsnyi and Zak Muscovitch. UDRP Perspectives welcomes you to review current jurisprudence as it relates to these two important topics or on …

UDRP Perspectives has been updated with new perspectives on the topics of Trademark Infringement and Reputation, written by Igor Motsnyi and Zak Muscovitch. UDRP Perspectives welcomes you to review current jurisprudence as it relates to these two important topics or on any of the 50 topics that it covers.  The goal of UDRP Perspectives is to provide guidance in the application of the UDRP through up-to-date case …

UDRP Perspectives has been updated with new perspectives on the topics of Trademark Infringement and Reputation, written by Igor Motsnyi and Zak Muscovitch. UDRP Perspectives welcomes you to review current jurisprudence as it relates to these two important topics or on any of the 50 topics that it covers.  The goal of UDRP Perspectives is to provide guidance in the …

Who Solicited Who? As readers will know, different jurisdictions have different procedures for trademark registrations. As the Panel observed in this particular case, the Complainant’s French trademark was registered on October 14, 2011, but was made effective from March 30, 2011, i.e. the date of application, as is apparently the French practice. Usually, a registration with such retroactive effect wouldn’t …

No Place for Constructive Notice in UDRP Once again, a Complainant has erroneously relied on “constructive notice”. The Panel properly dismissed this allegation, in part relying upon Gerald Levine’s treatise (“Clash”). As noted in UDRP Perspectives at 3.4, there is no place for the concept of “constructive knowledge” of trademarks under the Policy. In The Way International Inc. v. Diamond …

First Domain Registered Before Complainant Rights, Second One After The Panel correctly determined that a domain name simply cannot have been registered in bad faith when the registration predates a trademark right, as noted in UDRP Perspectives at 3.2. It is axiomatic that a Respondent could not have registered a domain name in bad faith before a Complainant acquired rights in the …

Trademark Infringement and the UDRP Notably, the Panel properly rejected the doctrine of “constructive notice” in the context of the UDRP. As noted in UDRP Perspectives at 3.4, there is no place for the concept of “constructive notice” of trademarks under the Policy. The essence of a Complaint is an allegation of bad faith targeting of the Complainant. For that …

Panel: Complainant’s Certification “Could Not Properly Have Been Given” “First come, first served” is a particularly compelling and clear general principle that one learns in childhood, but it is equally applicable to UDRP disputes as the Panel found in this case. The Panel noted that the Respondent had registered the .com Domain Name back in 2009 – six years prior …

Genuine Criticism Websites Enjoy Safe Harbor Under UDRP The Panel correctly dismissed the Complaint. Whether one has sympathy or not for the target of a critical website, and whether or not one believes that the UDRP can be adapted to address cases of unfair or defamatory websites, the fact is that the UDRP was not intended to be and must …

Selling Tesla Accessories Bona Fide and Nominative Fair Use As clearly stated by the Panel, “the Policy was created to address obvious cases of cybersquatting”. It was not intended to address all trademark disputes involving domain names”, referencing the WIPO Overview 3.0 at 4.14.6 which states in part, “panels have tended to deny the case not on the UDRP merits …