Cybersquatting on the .CO is Not So Smart – Vol. 3.31

Ankur Raheja UDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Smartney .co: Did the Respondent target Smartney .com, when he registered Smartney .CO? We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (Vol. 3.31), as we review these noteworthy recent decisions, with commentary from our General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch and Editor, Ankur Raheja. (We invite guest commenters to contact us.) ‣ Cybersquatting on the .CO is Not So Smart (smartney …

Undefended AKU .COM Transferred Despite No Evidence of Targeting – Vol. 3.30

Ankur Raheja UDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Undefended AKU .COM Transferred Despite No Evidence of Targeting This inactive high-value domain name is capable of a multitude of non-infringing uses and was never used to target the Complainant. How did it end up transferred? We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (Vol. 3.30), as we review these noteworthy recent decisions, with commentary from our Director, …

Complainant’s Speculative Case Goes South – Vol. 3.29

Ankur Raheja UDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Today in UDRP History On July 18, 2002, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a decision in Black v. Molson, overturning NAF Panelist Robert Merhige’s Order transferring “Canadian .biz” to Molson. Panelist Merhige had inter alia found that since the recorded registrant, “%2d%2d”, didn’t exist – despite it being an apparent URL encoding glitch – that neither “it” nor …

ICA Issues Objection to Indian Domain Name Authority’s Plan to Prohibit Domain Investing

Kamila Sekiewicz Blog Leave a Comment

Today, the ICA sent a letter to the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) in response to NIXI’s request for feedback on draft amendments to the terms and conditions for registrants as proposed on their website. In its letter, the ICA urges NIXI, in the strongest possible terms, to immediately reconsider this proposed ill-advised course of action which threatens the …

“Free Speech” Under the UDRP – Vol. 3.28

Ankur Raheja UDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

ON THIS DAY IN UDRP HISTORY – JULY 11, 2000  On July 11, 2000, Dr. Andrew F. Christie was appointed by WIPO to be the sole panelist in Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v Michael Urvan, namely the Sting.com UDRP dispute. According to Wikipedia; “The case drew international attention for being the first major defeat of a celebrity in a domain …

A Simple Matter of Logic Saves Integrity – Vol. 3.27

Ankur Raheja UDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (Vol. 3.27), as we review these noteworthy recent decisions, with commentary from our General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch. We invite guest commenters to contact us. ‣ A Simple Matter of Logic Saves Integrity (integrity .com*with commentary) ‣ Expired Domain Name Recovery ‘Made Easy’ (icemadeeasy .com*with commentary) ‣ Not The Panel’s Role to Search …

Whose Burden is it to Wake Sleeping Evidence? – Vol. 3.26

Ankur Raheja UDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (Vol. 3.26), as we review these noteworthy recent decisions, with commentary from Experts. We invite guest commenters to contact us. ‣ Whose Burden is it to Wake Sleeping Evidence? (sleeptopia .com*with commentary) ‣ How Stericycle, Inc. Proved Common Law Rights in “Stericorp”? (stericorp .com*with commentary) ‣ Panel: With “Not a Skerrick of …

Welcoming Our New Bronze Member: Anthos Chrysanthou and the Sav.com Team!

Kamila Sekiewicz Blog, Uncategorized Leave a Comment

We are happy to announce ICA’s newest Bronze member, Anthos Chrysanthou, and his dedicated team from Sav.com For those who may not know, Sav.com is a dynamic registrar focused on simplifying domain registration and management, making it more accessible for everyone. They have recently updated their logo, reinforcing their commitment to being a trusted platform for establishing a robust web presence. Anthos, …

Respondent’s Argument an “Insult to Intelligence” – Vol. 3.25

Ankur Raheja UDRP Case Summaries 1 Comment

We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (Vol. 3.25), as we review these noteworthy recent decisions, with commentary from Experts. We invite guest commenters to contact us. ‣ Respondent’s Argument an “Insult to Intelligence” (savefromus .com*with commentary) ‣ Evaluating Confusing Similarity When Some Content Relates to the Complainant (xpornonly .com*with commentary) ‣ A Troubling Case Involving Consolidation and a …