UDRP

Time of Registration in Determining Cybersquatting

While Panels under the UDRP and judges under the ACPA draw upon a similar body of principles in determining infringement -- both mechanisms, after all, are crafted to combat cybersquatting -- and though arbitration panels and judges undoubtedly view alleged tortious wrongdoing by abusive registrations of domain names through similar lenses and apply laws that may be outwardly similar, each protective mechanism has developed its own distinct and separate jurisprudence.

Multistakeholderism Is Working: A Short Series of Articles

I was in a conversation with a close friend the other day, you know the kind where you have been friends for so long that you have endured each other experimenting with changed politics, evolving religion, and if you are unlucky, flirtations with multilevel marketing. We were discussing politics that day, which is not unusual given our ancient friendship and the recent change at the helm of the United States.

Cybersecurity Tech Accord: 98% of Registrar Whois Requests Unrequited

When a brand goes so far as to ask a domain name registrar for Whois (the registration contact details) of a potentially abusive domain name, there's likely a lot at stake. Most often, the request is prompted by consumer safety concerns, such as the risk to consumers posed by a malicious site. Other times, the demand has a simple goal: to have a dialog with the registrant about the use of trademarks or other intellectual property in order to avoid extreme action.

Limitations and Laches as Defenses in Domain Name Cybersquatting Claims

UDRP Paragraph 4(c) states as a preamble that "[a]ny of the following circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interest to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii)." Three nonexclusive circumstances are listed.

Exploring the Meanings of “Right” and “Legitimate Interest” (UDRP Proceedings)

For complainant, the second leg in determining cybersquatting under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is evidence respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in the challenged domain name (Paragraph 4(a)(ii)). I underscore "both" because proving one but not the other is not good enough. This seems obvious, so why suggest there is something to explore about "rights" and "legitimate interests" if their meanings hardly need explication?

Speculating in Domain Names: Pricing War(e)s

Speculation in one form of another has an ancient and honorable history. It not only creates entrepreneurial activity but fuels markets for selling wares and offering services, but also generates competition for consumers and wars over loyalty. The commercialization of the Internet in the 1990s, which extended market activity into virtual (cyber) space, has many of the virtues of the actual but also its vices: cheating and fraud, and other skullduggery.

How Ignorance Can Lead Mark Owners Astray in UDRP Proceedings

The great problem with ignorance is that it leads to disaster when one acts in the belief that he (and not infrequently a corporate "it") is invulnerable to error. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is fundamentally a straightforward rights protection mechanism, but as in all clearly written laws, ignorance of its application and of its evidentiary demands can (and generally does) lead to disaster.

“Objective” and “Objectivity” in UDRP Decision Making

No one will disagree that disputes before arbitral tribunals and courts should be determined on the merits. I have noticed that some Panels appointed under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) have employed the words "objective" and "objectively" in their recent decisions. In pondering these linguistic choices, it seems to me that there are two possible reasons for their use; the first is more acceptable than the second.

The Suitable Defendant Rule: In Rem Jurisdiction under the ACPA

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) creates two distinct avenues by which mark owners may seek a remedy for cybersquatting. A person who is a suitable defendant under 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(1)(A) is one over whom the court has in personam jurisdiction. However, if the mark owner is "not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant" in the ACPA action, then "[t]he owner may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in...

Only Bad Actors Should Worry About the URS

With DNS abuse a topic of increased concern throughout the community, any controversy over adopting the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) for all generic top-level domains (gTLDs) seems misplaced. The URS was designed as a narrow supplement to the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), applicable only in certain tightly defined circumstances of clear-cut and incontrovertible trademark infringement involving the registration and use of a domain name.