UDRP Case Summaries

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

The Challenge of Properly Applying Telstra The key element of the well-known Telstra standard: “it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate”.  while appearing to be simple and intuitive is quite challenging to apply. It is an odd standard that deviates from the

Complainants Must Establish Reputation as of Date of Domain Registration We often see Complainants making the mistake of proving their reputation as of the time of filing the Complaint, but that is inadequate. Rather, the material date is the date of registration since that is the point in time that we must evaluate whether the Complainant’s reputation was the reason

Panel Takes the “Holistic Approach” to Oki Data As noted in UDRP Perspectives at 2.3, although the Oki Data test has consistently been applied since 2001, it is best used as a guide and adapted as necessary by Panels. In other words, it is not enshrined in stone, but rather can be a helpful yardstick by which to measure the

Intentionality and Trademark Infringement Can a Respondent’s belief that a Complainant abandoned its trademark, combined with due diligence, vitiate a claim of bad faith registration? Yes, as the Panel found in this case. Here, the Respondent provided an apparently credible explanation of the reasons that it believed that it had the right to register and use the Domain Name. The

Policy Requires That Bad Faith Must Target ‘Complainant, Specifically’, Not Unrelated Third Parties We sometimes see Respondent’s misapprehend what a “generic” or “descriptive” term is. Here, the Respondent argued that the Disputed Domain Name “consists of two generic terms, ‘cyber’ and ‘nautic’, however as the Panel pointed out, this “does not establish that the combined term, “cybernautic,” is generic or

Free Speech/Criticism as Legitimate Interest The 3-member Forum Panel in  <veatchcarlson. com>  denied the complaint and found that the Respondent has a legitimate interest in using the disputed domain name for criticizing the Complainant.  The issue of free speech/criticism remains one of the grey areas in UDRP jurisprudence. Continue reading the commentary here.  Register today for the CIIDRC’s Domain Disputes