UDRP

UDRP / Featured Blogs

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. more

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? more

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. more

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. more

“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. more

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... more

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. more

UDRP and the Law: Should Cybersquatting be the Default View?

I have returned to the subject of the title on a number of occasions and it is worth revisiting. Like judicial proceedings, the substance of disputes under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Panel determinations are publicly available. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) mandates in its Rules that all decisions must be delivered to the parties within "three business days" of their receipt of the decision and posted on providers' websites. more

Assessing Intent to Cybersquat

It, perhaps, does not have to be said that cybersquatting is an intentional tort. No one would expect the respondent to admit unlawful intention, but complainant's proof must nevertheless support that contention. The Panel in Hästens Sängar AB v. Jeff Bader / Organic Mattresses, Inc. FA2005001895951 (Forum July 31, 2020) reminds us that it takes more than bad faith use of a domain name to find cybersquatting. more

Confusingly Similar But No Likelihood of Confusion in UDRP

The word "confusion" in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) signifies two separate states of mind. The first in ¶4(a)(i) appears in the phrase "identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights." It is a test to determine whether the mark owner has standing to maintain a UDRP proceeding. more