Intentionality and Trademark Infringement – vol. 4.43

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

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 – vol. 4.42

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

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 – vol. 4.41

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

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 …

Complainant Fails to Prove Prior Trademark Rights – vol. 4.40

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Complainant Fails to Prove Prior Trademark Rights The Panel was of course, correct that a trademark right must predate the disputed domain name for there to be bad faith registration. As noted in UDRP Perspectives at 3.2, for bad faith registration to have occurred, the trademark must predate the Respondent’s domain name registration. UDRP Panels routinely determine that a domain …

Armoured Vehicle Business Dispute Involving Competing Trademark Registrations – vol. 4.39

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Armoured Vehicle Business Dispute Involving Competing Trademark Registrations You will note that the Panel stated that “the Respondent in this case did not request a finding of RDNH, but such a finding seems appropriate in the circumstances”. This approach fulfils the Panel’s obligation to consider whether a Complaint is abusive in every case that warrants such consideration, regardless of whether …

Panel: Respondent’s Prerogative to Seek Any Price it Wishes for a Generic-Word Domain Name – vol 4.38

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Panel: Respondent’s Prerogative to Seek Any Price it Wishes for a Generic-Word Domain Name Although the Panel ultimately rejected the claim for RDNH, the Panel did consider it – as is its duty to under the Rules where the facts so warrant, as was the case here. RDNH is a discretionary remedy and Panels have significant latitude in accepting or …

Does Res Judicata Apply to Refiled UDRP Complaints? – vol. 4.37

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Does Res Judicata Apply to Refiled UDRP Complaints? Looking back at the original case, the Complainant’s arguments (as summarized in the second decision) do not seem to quite match what transpired there. The US trademark registration application was filed on the same day that the complainant’s domain name was registered, January 23, 2019.  The Complainant’s trademark registration application was filed …

Panel: Respondent’s Counsel “Wasted Everyone’s Time by Defending the Indefensible” – vol. 4.36

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

“System Critical Updates Available” by Mr. Sten Lillieström It is not uncommon to believe that language is merely a set of arbitrary units that we learn by rote. That is perhaps the legacy view and the common idea. But at the heart of modern Linguistics are hard, unresolved questions about what is actually going on under the hood. And the …

How to Assess the History of MinuteMen(.com) – vol 4.35

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

An update to UDRP Perspectives was released on August 30th.  This version offers entirely new perspectives on Personal Names (1.9) and on Prior Business Relationships (3.9), as well as revised and expanded Perspectives on And not Or (3.1) and on Setting a Price and Offering for Sale (3.5).  This version also includes the addition of many recently published decisions and UDRP …

Nominative Fair Use – Favoring a Holistic Approach to the OKI Data Test – vol. 4.34

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Nominative Fair Use – Favoring a Holistic Approach to the OKI Data Test This decision is one of a number of recent cases that have looked beyond the binary questions of items two and three of the venerable Oki Data test, i.e., whether a respondent’s website sells only the trademarked goods or services and not those of a complainant’s competitors …